dattaswami Posted April 6, 2020 Report Share Posted April 6, 2020 WHAT EXISTS BEYOND BOUNDARY OF UNIVERSE? For intellectuals Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only Reply From Shri Datta Swami to Questions from Mr. Anil God exists at the boundary of the universe. However one can never reach the boundary. That means that God is not achieved. Then atheist may argue that since he is not reaching the boundary practically then God will not even exist there at all. Swami Replied: The boundary means one item on one side and the other different item on the other side. Boundary of the ocean means water on one side and the different soil on the other side. If on both sides water alone is present, it is no more the boundary of the ocean. If soil alone is present on both sides, it is no more the boundary of the soil of earth. This universe or cosmic space (composed of matter and energy and also some drops of awareness in the forms of souls, embedded in bodies of matter and energy, called as human beings scattered here and there) is endless to the unclothed eye, to the sophisticated equipments like telescopes and even to the imagination of mind. Therefore, we say that the boundary of this cosmos is endless and unimaginable. Since the cosmos is imaginable in the core up to its edge, we can say that even the edge of the cosmos is imaginable, which is made of the same matter and energy (even the soul is a specific form of energy and hence, comes under the category of energy only). Therefore, the boundary is not unimaginable because there is no difference between the core and the boundary in their materials. The unimaginable boundary of the cosmos means that the point where it ends is not imaginable making the cosmos endless. Therefore, you have to accept that the ending point of the cosmos is unimaginable, which naturally must be totally different from the imaginable cosmos (like soil differing from water). If the ending point is also imaginable, it is not the boundary of the edge of the cosmos. It means the cosmos is still continuous. If you say the ending point of the ocean is again water only, it means the sea is continuous and the boundary is not reached. Therefore, the essential criterion for the end point of the imaginable cosmos must not be imaginable again and must be unimaginable in which case only we can say that the imaginary cosmos ends there. You must say that the end point of ocean is not water, but, should say that it is the soil, which is totally different from the water. Hence, the boundary of the cosmos has imaginable nature on one side and the unimaginable nature on the other side like the boundary of ocean has water on one side and soil on the other side. Hence, you have to accept the existence of unimaginable nature on the other side of the boundary of this imaginable cosmos. Infinity of Cosmos Due to Unimaginable God on Other Side Any imaginable item must be finite as we see in the imaginable cosmos or world. Hence, the imaginable cosmos composed of imaginable and finite items must be also imaginable and finite. But, this imaginable cosmos is infinite since its end cannot be reached. On one hand, you say that the ocean is imaginable and finite and on the other hand you say its end is not reached! Both these arguments mutually contradict each other. The best solution in this critical juncture is that to agree the finite nature of the imaginable cosmos having imaginable end as the inherent concept of this imaginable cosmos. In such case, we must reach the edge of this cosmos. Yes. We agree that it should be reached basing on the inherent imaginable nature of cosmos. We say here that the end of the cosmos is not reached not because of violation of its inherent nature, but, because of the unimaginable nature of the other side, which cannot be reached. I illustrate this with an example. You stand before Me at a point after 10 feet. As I travel towards you, suppose you also go back subsequently maintaining the same 10 feet distance between us. This 10 feet distance becomes endless not because of the absolute elongation of the distance, but, because of your relative backward movement. If the 10 feet is maintained constant due to the elongation of the gap between us, I do not reach the end of 10 feet due to the infinity of the gap itself due to its constant expansion. But, it is not so. I do not reach the end of the gap because you relatively move backward. If the gap really (absolutely) expands, it is the absolute characteristic of the gap. If you move backward, it is the absolute characteristic of your backward motion by which alone, the relative expansion of the gap appears as the absolute phenomenon of the gap. Similarly, the universe does not constantly expand in the absolute sense. It appears as if it constantly expands because I cannot touch the other side of its edge being unimaginable in spite of My continuous journey. Therefore, the infinity of the gap or the infinity of the cosmos due to constant expansion is only a relative concept and not the absolute concept. The credit of infinity goes to the other unimaginable side (God) of the edge and not to this imaginable side (cosmos) of the edge. This means that the cosmos is infinite or the boundary of the cosmos is unimaginable due to the existence of unimaginable God on the other side of the edge. Beware, the above simile given by Me should be confined to the concepts presented by Me here, because extension to more concepts is controlled by the limitations like: both of us are imaginable items in the simile and in the compared concept one is imaginable and the other is unimaginable. Generator & Effect: (God-Space) — (Lump-Pot) — (Fire-Smoke) If the other side does not contain the unimaginable God, in such case, this imaginable cosmos itself must be infinite. You have already proved in the cosmos that any imaginable item is finite and therefore, the cosmos imaginable up to its edge must be also finite and should not be infinite. The characteristic existing in the micro-level cannot be thrown out at the macro-level. If one litre of milk is white, 100 litres of milk must also be white. If you say that the cosmos is infinite, you contradict the capability of your own science. Hence, there is no other way than to accept the unimaginable item (call it as God just as a name) on the other side of the edge of cosmos so that the infinity of the cosmos is linked to the unimaginable God and you can maintain the concept of finite cosmos also side by side. This situation creates a picture of a stream of smoke coming from the fire. The smoke is compared to the cosmos and the fire is compared to unimaginable God. Since fire and smoke are imaginable, you can touch the fire on travelling some distance along with the smoke. If the fire is unimaginable, you can never touch the fire and due to the relative concept, you have to make endless journey along the smoke. Here, fire is the generator (cause) and the smoke is generated product (effect). This brings cause-effect relationship between God and cosmos. The smoke cannot exist in the fire and similarly, the cosmos or space cannot exist in God since nothing can exist before its generation. Due to the absence of space in God before its generation, God must have no spatial dimensions and must be beyond space. This makes God unimaginable since anything beyond space is naturally unimaginable. This cause-effect relationship proves the unimaginable nature of God due to the absence of effect in the cause before the production of the effect. This is a simultaneous advantage to prove that God being beyond space is unimaginable. This is the naturally consequential conclusion. Once you have established that God is unimaginable, nobody including atheist can say that God is non-existent. If God is non-existent, the other side of the edge of the cosmos is not unimaginable, which means that the imaginable cosmos is constantly continuing. This means the imaginable cosmos is inherently infinite. This is the failure of logic and science because no imaginable item is infinite. The pot is not in the lump of mud before its production and the smoke is not in the fire before its production. One important point to differentiate these two examples is that mud is in the pot after production of pot whereas fire is not in the smoke after its production. The mud-pot concept can be seen in the entry of God into a human being as human incarnation. Except this one concept of human incarnation, God does not enter into this world like the non-entry of fire into the smoke. Joint Wall Either Between Two Sites or One Side of Site Only Opponent: How do you say that the boundary of cosmos is unimaginable when the core and edge are imaginable? Shri Swami: To clarify this point, I have already told that though the edge is also imaginable like the core, generally, the boundary line indicates the joint line between two imaginable areas. If you stand on that line like a cat, you belong to both sides. Now, this idea is applied here to the joint line between imaginable and unimaginable domains and the line belonging to both sides can be called as imaginable or unimaginable boundary. If the boundary line is in the imaginable domain only, and if you stand on such line, you will be stated standing in this side area only. In the first case, the joint wall is between two sites, half in this site and the other half in the other site. In the second case, the joint wall is entirely in this side site only. Therefore, if the joint wall is in this side site only, the joint wall can be called as edge of this side site. If the joint wall is in both sites, this side half of the wall alone is the edge of this site. Remember, the edge of any site can be totally the joint wall or partly the joint wall. This means that the edge of one site need not be always the total joint wall (if joint wall occupies both sites). Now, the boundary representing the joint wall can be taken totally as the edge of cosmos or can be taken partly as the edge of cosmos. If the boundary exists in both sites, the edge of one site is only half of the joint wall. In our concept one site is imaginable and the other site is unimaginable. Now, you can ask that how the joint wall (joint line) can extend into unimaginable site since we see the joint line only between two imaginable sites. This objection can be ruled out because the joint line is half imaginable and half unimaginable. This side half is seen by us and that side half cannot be seen and hence that side is the assumed half line. There is possibility of existence of assumed lines in science also. Expansion of Space Impossible Opponent: In the above simile of 10ft gap between two persons, the other person can move back infinitely provided the space is infinite. In the concept, how you can say that the space is finite? Shri Swami: Since you are taking the space in both concept and simile as common item, both simile and concept become one and the same as far as this point of space is concerned. Hence, this problem in the simile is the same problem in the concept also. Hence, I told you that you have to take the simile in the only point expressed by Me without crossing the limits of simile. If I said that your face looks good like moon, you have to limit the face and moon as far as the point of good looking is concerned only and which alone is expressed by Me. You should not cross the limits of the simile and say that the black spots present in moon must also exist in your face! Similarly, you have to take the simile as far as the points only expressed by Me. You cannot touch God compared to the second person in simile (being unimaginable in the concept) and the gap does not expand except the other person only moves back in the simile (the unimaginable God not touched by us in the concept is the backward motion of the other person in the simile). The unimaginable nature of God is compared to backward motion of the person. Inability to touch both is the common concept. By this, you should not mistake that God also moves back like the person. Coming to the common problem of infinite space or gap in the concept as well as in the simile, you have to take the backward motion of the other person (simile) as our inability to touch the unimaginable God (concept). The aim of this is to establish that the backward motion of the other person/ the inability to touch the unimaginable God is the absolute concept where as the expansion of gap/space is relative concept. Relative concept means that which is not real but appears as if it is real. The expansion of space is impossible because for the expansion of any item, the space that is different from the item is required. Then only we can say that the item is expanding in space. If you make the space as the item to expand, there should be another different space to allow the expansion of this space. Here, you can say that the universe expands constantly in the space. But, the space being the subtle energy, the problem of expansion comes to the space also since cosmos is also energy and since matter in it is also energy. Hence, you have to accept the universe/cosmos/space as energy only. By this, the expansion of space/cosmos in space becomes impossible. Opponent: The space is subtle form of energy and is infinite. The cosmos consisting of gross forms of energy like matter, radiations etc., is a different form. Now, we say that the gross form of energy (cosmos) is constantly expanding in the infinite subtle form of energy (space). There is no need of speaking about unimaginable God beyond space and hence God is non-existent. Shri Swami: 1) The cosmos contains not only gross forms of energy like matter, radiations etc., but also subtle form of energy which is space as the very basis of cosmos. The space in the cosmos is also divided into finite forms occupied by the finite forms of matter and gross energy. The space exists in both the cosmos that expands and also in the infinite space in which the cosmos expands. Since the space is one and the same on both sides, how do you explain the expansion of space (in the cosmos) in the infinite space since both are the same subtle forms of the same energy? If the space in cosmos does not expand in the infinite space, the matter and radiation also cannot expand because the space exists in both. 2) You have not shown the edge of the cosmos, which expands, from which point, the infinite space exists. If smoke expands in space, I can show you the edge of the smoke during the process of expansion. In such case, it is only your assumption that the cosmos expands in infinite space. Therefore, if you say that the space is infinite, it means that the cosmos is also infinite because space is a part of the cosmos. The cosmos is said to be made of five elements of which space (Aakasha) is the first component. If you stop with such infinite cosmos, ignoring the unimaginable God beyond cosmos, it is not a logically possible concept because all the components of the cosmos become infinite and the cause-effect relationship between them cannot exist. But, you find the mutual inter-conversion of matter & energy and energy & awareness. In such case, there must be a final cause of the ultimate cosmic cause (space or subtle energy). The cause of this ultimate cosmic cause (space) must be unimaginable since the space as a product cannot exist in such final cause, which (final cause), therefore, must be unimaginable. You cannot say that space itself is the final cause. The reason is that since space is subtle energy or energy and since energy is generated from matter, energy or subtle energy or space cannot be the final cause. The final cause should not be the effect of any other cause. In the inter-conversion, energy is cause in conversion of it into matter and the same energy is effect/product when matter is converting into energy. The final cause should always stand as cause only in all situations and should never be the effect/product of any other cause. Hence, the space requires the necessity of its final cause. Even though the cosmos is finite because of the finite characteristic of all its components, it appears as if it is infinite due to its relative concept as explained above. The visible part and the invisible part of cosmos (invisible part appears to be infinite by appearing as if it exists, due to relativity with respect to the unimaginable God) should be one and the same as far as the constituting components are concerned. In such case, the visible part of the cosmos also must appear to exist with reference to the unimaginable God. This means that the total cosmos appears as if it exists due to relativity with respect to God. Hence, the entire cosmos is non-existent in absolute sense with respect to the unimaginable God. But, the same cosmos absolutely exists with respect to all its components, especially with respect to its component called as soul, which alone can recognise the existence and non-existence. The cosmos is existent in the angle of the soul and is simultaneously non-existent in the angle of God. If the angle is not mentioned, it can neither be said existent nor non-existent and is called as Mithyaa by Shankara (Sadasat Vilakshanaa Mithyaa) and the same is the theory of relativity of Einstein. Einstein clarified this in excellent way: The space-component of cosmos is never absolute but only relative or geometrical that exists between two objects and disappears when all the objects (matter and gross energy) disappear. This shows that space is only relatively real with respect to matter and gross energy and is never absolutely real. The dissolution of space means the dissolution of the entire world i.e., everything other than non-relative God. When the space disappears, the situation is unimaginable, which is unimaginable God. Hence, Einstein gave the proof for unimaginable God beyond space. Einstein feels that space is nothing. Space disappears when matter and energy disappear since space relatively exists with respect to matter and energy. We have taken a different version that space is something as it is subtle form of energy. In our way also, when matter and energy disappear, the subtle form of energy (space) also disappears. Thus, disappearance of space along with matter and energy is the resultant common concept in both the ways. =============== -By Shri Datta Swami (Visit our website:Universal Spirituality for World Peace) Universal Spirituality for World Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts