UNIMAGINABILITY OF GOD LED TO MULTIPLE SCHOOLS OF PHILOSOPHY

[dattaswami]

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

Shankara told that the awareness, which is filtered from all types of thoughts and left over with a single thought that it is awareness, is the absolute God (Nirguna Brahman). All the thoughts can be classified into three types, which are called as Trigunas. Awareness, aware of itself is a thought by itself, which is the inherent characteristic of the awareness and is called as awareness in general. Sattvam is one of the three types of thoughts. The type Sattvam represents all good and divine thoughts. The general awareness (jnanam) is also included in this first category i.e., Sattvam. The word knowledge (jnanam) basically means to know something including itself. The word jnanam is fixed (rudha) in special knowledge but it can be taken in this basic sense (yoga) also.

The basic material of every thought is general awareness. Therefore, the basis of all the three types of thoughts is general awareness, which should not be confined to the first type only. Based on this logic, Shakara isolated the general awareness from the three types of thoughts and called it as absolute God. Hence, the absolute God is above the three types of thoughts (Trigunas) and hence, called as Nirguna Brahman. This word means that the absolute God is beyond and separate from the three Gunas. But, the general awareness itself is a specific work form of the inert energy only, which is generated from the oxidation of food. The general awareness disappears in deep sleep and appears in the awaken state. Hence, the general awareness has daily birth and daily death as said in the Gita (Nitya jaatam…). You cannot call the general awareness as thoughtless entity and claim that it is beyond all the thoughts or Gunas. The thoughtless entity is the inert energy in deep sleep and therefore, cannot be the awareness. If you say that the awareness is thoughtless, the awareness itself disappears and becomes inert energy. It is just like saying that the lump of gold is formless and the ornaments only have the form. This view is allowed in normal way but the sharp analysis shows that the lump of gold also has some form, which may be irregular. Therefore, the general awareness can be allowed to be beyond all the thoughts (gunas) in such normal way.

What is the reason for Shankara to do all this exercise and promote the general awareness to the state of absolute God? Shankara knows very well that absolute God is unimaginable (Mouna Vyaakhya Prakatita…). ‘Unimaginable’ means that it is beyond awareness and also beyond inert entities. You cannot even imagine God and where is the possibility of attaining or becoming God? In such case, there is a free license to attribute any imaginable item as the absolute God and the license should be appreciated if some good purpose is served. If I say that a specific imaginable item is the unimaginable God, you can never negate My proposal. The reason is that you yourself cannot prove and define the unimaginable God on your side. When you cannot establish something, you cannot oppose anything.

The unimaginable status of the absolute God creates the pre-license to name any imaginable item as absolute God. This is the reason for the multiplicity of the schools of philosophy. Each school proposes some imaginable item as the absolute God according to its liking. This is the reason for the evolution of several religions and several schools of thoughts in the same religion. This is the basis for all the ‘sacred quarrels’! The reason is that the basic free license cannot be opposed by anybody since you cannot define the absolute God before opposing somebody. However, this free license is appreciated if some good purpose is served. The same free license should be condemned by the powerful logic establishing the unimaginable nature of God as the generator of the space in the context of avoiding these sacred quarrels, which lead to unsacred harmful results.

Therefore, Shankara can be appreciated since He selected the general awareness as absolute God. It was necessary for Him since everybody became atheist by denying the existence of God based on the reason of unimaginable nature. Some imaginable item should be selected as absolute God to deny atheism. The atheists (Buddhists) concluded that everything is nothing based on the concept of relativity.

In the force of relativity, the basis also became nothing. The theory of relativity became endless. Then, Shankara proposed the existence of awareness to grasp this relativity. Otherwise, the relativity itself becomes nothing. If the awareness is non-existent, this ‘nothing’ becomes nothing since nothing is not established, which is not grasped by the awareness. By this logic, Shankara stopped the endless concept of relativity at the basis of awareness. Awareness was used as the temporary stop gap by Shankara to stop the endless relativity, the result of which is endless nothing (Shunya).

Psychological Treatment of Patients by Advaita

Apart from the above essential good aspect, another good aspect is to remove the strain of tensions and to introduce perfect detachment and confidence in the case of general public. Everybody was strained by the mental tension, which is the result of continuous thoughts. When the thoughtless awareness is set to be God, everybody tried to enter this state of awareness without thoughts. This gives perfect rest to mind and mental strain is removed. Everybody gets attracted because such a state is the absolute God and you also become God by such state!

By keeping yourself in such state, you become God and you need not crave for worldly things.
By becoming God, you need not aspire for anything because you have attained everything.
This leads to the detachment from the worldly things and avoids lot of sin in the society.
This also gives full confidence and full satisfaction to the self because you have become the highest omnipotent God!

All this is the psychological treatment for the mental patients and every human being is a psychotic patient in reality. Shankara, the human incarnation of God is the psychiatrist, who came down to cure His children from the mental illness. Most of the people follow Advaita Philosophy for these good benefits only and we need not condemn this philosophy in the view of establishment of truth and spoil these good benefits given by Shankara to the society. But, once the human being is cured from these mental defects, the truth must be established so that it can progress in the true spiritual path to attain the ultimate grace of God. You must distinguish the mental patients attracted by the Advaita Philosophy from the greedy lot of human beings to become the highest God resulting in egoistic demons. We should sympathize with the first group and not reveal the truth. You must open the truth to the second group and rectify them.

[value]

By keeping yourself in such state, you become God and you need not crave for worldly things.
By becoming God, you need not aspire for anything because you have attained everything.
This leads to the detachment from the worldly things and avoids lot of sin in the society.
This also gives full confidence and full satisfaction to the self because you have become the highest omnipotent God.

It is an interesting idea but perhaps it isn't as simple as stated. The inclination to turn to God - by releasing the cravings of worldly things - might set one on a path that reaches into the mentioned state of detachment and prevention of sin but it cannot logically be said that an earthly creature is serving the potency of what is indicated optimally since its existence is to be considered a highest manifestation on behalf of a purpose and to fulfil that purpose most optimally should enable one to excel in the good nature of the described state. So at question would be: why and how?

Further, one must wake for a striving for the mentioned state of detachment since that could unintentionally result in evil.

According to Spinoza, an attempt to escape evil with good results in evil. According to Spinoza, good only follows by reason.

He who is led by fear, and does good in order to escape evil, is not led by reason.
...
Corollary.--Under desire which springs from reason, we seek good directly, and shun evil indirectly.

https://ethics.spinozism.org/text.php

When one makes an ethical claim, one essentially attempts to 'cling on' for hope and as Spinoza has indicated in his work Ethics, there can be no hope without fear and to guide one by fear results in evil. This may explain why ethical notions deviate from reason.

When one strives for detachment, would that be to escape a perceived 'evil' or would there be a reasonable ground? When one intends to escape attachment as an evil, according to the reasoning by Spinoza, it could result in evil.

To achieve a desirable state, it may be best to start with the question "What is a good state?" and most importantly: why? When one establishes reason for a 'good' state, it logically naturally follows.

When one considers the value in the world - which includes everything of which it can be said that it 'matters' within the scope of a human perspective - one could argue that that value logically must have been preceded by an aspect that is necessarily meaningful but that cannot be 'value' by the simple logical truth that something cannot be the origin of itself.

When one considers the concept pure meaning as the only ground for relevance in the scope of one's perspective on life, one can become detached or go beyond attachment of 'value' while fulfilling a moral life, which includes optimal performance in life's bigger whole, such as a community of people, or humanity in general.

Morality (a moral life) can be achieved by addressing the question "What is 'good'?".

Aristotle considers a state of philosophical contemplation (eudaimonia) the greatest virtue (highest human good). It is a strive to serve life: the discovery of "good" from which 'value' follows.

The following topic might be of interest:

How Desirable or Possible is to Be Detached or Beyond Attachments?
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =1&t=17550

[dattaswami]

Aristotle considers a state of philosophical contemplation (eudaimonia) the greatest virtue (highest human good). It is a strive to serve life: the discovery of "good" from which 'value' follows.

The following topic might be of interest:

How Desirable or Possible is to Be Detached or Beyond Attachments?
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =1&t=17550

There are six vices, which are 1) illegal sex (kama), 2) violence (krodha), 3) greediness (corruption of money), 4) fascination (moha), 5) Ego (mada) and 6) jealousy (maatsarya). The first three affect other souls and hence are considered to be strong sins or main gates to the hell as per the Gita. The latter three are not serious in case others are not affected.

Illegal sex with some soul pains its life partner to a very deep extent. Violence to kill living beings for food and killing people for various reasons like rowdyism or terrorism is the greatest sin. Earning unlawful money by exploiting others is also a very serious sin since the affected persons suffer a lot.

Out of these six vices, the first three are very serious leading the soul certainly to hell since these three sins are harming others. The latter three sins do not lead to hell provided there is no damage to others. If you have fascination to world, you need not go to hell if your fascination to your wife/husband or issues or money does not harm others. Similarly, your ego will not take you to hell as long as your ego doesn’t hurt others.
Similarly, your jealousy towards others will not give any punishment in hell if it is not harming others. Sometimes, jealousy also helps you in your development. If you examine the first three sins, your anger/violence will certainly damage others. Similarly, your greediness for money is resulting in corruption by which you are stealing others’ money by which others suffer. Similarly, your illegal sex will certainly cause suffering to others.

[Dlaw]

I'm nobody to talk when it comes to maybe running on a bit but, dattaswami, this is simply too much. I have no idea why but Indian religious/philosophical texts seem to be made of one long sentence with a new concept every 3-5 words. I don't know why. Is it kind of a barrier to less-educated people where if you can't follow the narrative you can't engage in the conversation?

At any rate, how about a tree diagram or something?

Let me try the first few paragraph:

Shankara says that awareness is the absolute God (Nirguna Brahman). There are three types of thoughts here (Trigunas): First is Awareness-which-is-aware-of-itself, which is a thought type unto itself. Sattvam is comprised of good and divine thoughts. Jnanam is comprised of general awareness.

The states of awareness are distinct but overlap - except that Shankara tells us that Nigurna Brahman is an isolate or, perhaps, a pure distillate of awareness. Hence Nigurna Brahman is an Absolute God who is above all three types of thoughts. You say in this vein (I think) something about the three "Gunas".

Here is a problem I have with Hindu and Buddhist writers: If you did not tell us what Gunas means before, don't use the word now. Hindu and Buddhist writers drop sanskrit words in all the time without explaining them and, to me, it smacks of showing off. It would be a lot less of a problem if Hindu and Sanskrit words didn't have such complex and subtle meanings.

Moving on,..

The Scriptures say that awareness has a cycle of birth and death. There is the inert, thoughtless energy of deep sleep and the living energy of awareness. However, if awareness is thoughtless, it returns to inert energy.

Because God us above awareness and also above inert matter, it is permitted to give an imaginable object the name of God. Yet the object name arrived at for God is a form which is neutral. I does not cleave to any essence or identity beyond itself. It is not the subject but the object. No claim that one name or another is closer to God is possible. However, if naming God serves a positive purpose it is permitted and does not, in itself, constitute a claim of awareness above the Nigurman Brahman.



How is it going so far?