Scientific technology reveals awareness to be work

[dattaswami]

Unimaginable awareness is the awareness of the unimaginable God

The word ‘unimaginable awareness’ used above does not mean that the awareness is unimaginable. The word awareness is only taken in the sense of the action of thinking, which is done by the unimaginable God. It simply means that the unimaginable God did an action which is the process of thinking. There are only two items: (a) the unimaginable God as the subject or the doer and (b) the action of thinking done by the unimaginable God.

Since the absolute God is unimaginable, He cannot be the imaginable relative awareness. The action of thinking also cannot be this relative awareness because there is no place for the relative awareness in the subject and hence, there is no place for the relative awareness in the work done by the subject. In the case of the imaginable soul, the subject is imaginable awareness and the work done by the subject is also imaginable awareness. In the case of God, there is no place for the imaginable awareness anywhere.


Parabrahman is defined as the absolutely real-unimaginable-non-mediated God (Paramārtha-sadanūhyam anupādhikaṃ Parabrahma). The action of such unimaginable God is wishing to create the world to get rid of the boredom arising out of loneliness and to have some entertainment. Such wishing or thinking is also simple thinking like the thinking of a soul. The soul wishes to construct a house to get rid of the boredom of inaction and get entertainment. The process of thinking seems to be common to both the unimaginable God and the ordinary soul. In reality, God’s process of thinking is not this relative awareness at all. Relative awareness does not exist at all, either in God’s process of thinking or in God, the thinker. Due to this common point of thinking, the unimaginable God may be misunderstood to be an ordinary soul or an ordinary soul may be misunderstood to be the unimaginable God. Due to the common aspect of a white shining appearance, the pearl shell may be mistaken to be silver or silver may be mistaken to be a pearl shell. Both illusions are possible, but in different places.

Cit is understood to be thinking (saṃjñānam) or noticing a stored thought (smaraṇam). So, cit can mean the thinking of God or the thinking of a soul because the verb-form of cit, which is cetati or cetayate, stands for thinking, in general. Thus, based on the root-meaning (vyutpatti or yoga) cit can refer to the thinking of God as well as the soul. Let us fix this word cit to mean the thinking of God alone and not of the soul. Such fixing of a word to mean only a certain thing is called rūḍhi (fixing by convention). So, the use of the word cit to mean the thinking of God becomes a yoga rūḍha usage. In other words, this usage satisfies both the root meaning (yoga) and is also fixed (rūḍhi) to mean a particular thing (the thinking of the unimaginable God).

The word paṅkajam means, that which is born of mud (paṅka). Both the lotus and the snail are born from the mud in a pond and so; both can be called paṅkajam, by yoga (root meaning). But, by convention (rūḍhi), this word is fixed to mean only a lotus. Thus, using the word paṅkajam for a lotus satisfies both yoga and rūḍhi and hence, the usage is a yoga rūḍha usage. The snail can also be said to be paṅkajam based on yoga (root meaning), but such a usage has no rūḍhi; i.e., the word paṅkajam is not conventionally fixed to mean a snail. Hence, the lotus is treated to be the original meaning of the word paṅkajam, whereas, a snail is its apparent meaning.

Similarly, cit can be fixed to mean the action of thinking of the unimaginable God to make it a yoga rūḍha usage. Ātmā can mean the unimaginable God, as we see in the Vedic statement “Ātmana ākāśaḥ”. God is said to be Ātman since God is very important in creation as the soul is very important in the body. Therefore, Cidātmā (Cit + Ātmā) means the original non-mediated unimaginable God, doing the action of thinking. However, with such a definition of the unimaginable God, there is a risk of generalizing that whoever thinks, is the unimaginable God. For instance, since the soul also thinks, we may conclude that the soul is also the unimaginable God. To avoid this error, the soul can be called cidābhāsa because it is not really the unimaginable God even though it exhibits the process of thinking (cit), which we have fixed to mean the thinking of the unimaginable God alone (yoga rūḍha). Thus, the thinking of the soul becomes an example of an illusion.

But when the illusion is removed, the soul does not become the unimaginable God. When the illusion is removed, the soul realizes that it is not the unimaginable God. The illusion is removed when we realise that we have fixed cit to mean only the thinking of God and we have excluded the thinking of the soul. Hence, the word cit cannot be used in the case of the soul, in that real fixed sense. Therefore, thinking of the soul must be concluded to be a false cit, which is an illusion of the real cit.

This whole process, which is well-aligned with the Advaita theory, is agreeable, but the concluded result should not be as they have done in the case of the illusory snake and the real rope. The Advaita philosophers should fix the concept first and only then take an appropriate simile or example for comparison. A simile can be taken for a partial concept too, as there is no need for all the aspects of the similie to match with all the aspects of the original concept. Unfortunately, Advaitins, give the simile first and go on applying all the points of the simile to the original concept, so that, finally, a false concept results!


The Ṛg Veda mentions two birds sitting on the same tree. It is a simile for God and a soul existing in the same body of the Incarnation. The two birds are merged together due to love (Dvā-suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā...). It is said that one bird is eating the food liked by it and the other is ‘shining’, without eating any food. Here, the awareness of the soul-bird is maintained by the food eaten by it. The food is converted into energy upon oxidation, which is transformed into awareness in its functioning brain and nervous system. In the other God-bird, there is no need of either food or a brain and nervous system to produce awareness because the awareness of God is merely the process of thinking done by the omnipotent-unimaginable God.

The food mentioned is the food liked by the bird. It is interpreted by scholars to mean that the soul-bird performs deeds and so, inevitably receives fruits of its deeds. But if the fruits eaten by the soul-bird were the fruits of the soul’s deeds, then the bird would have to eat both liked (merits) and disliked (sins) fruits. Taking the literal meaning (vācyārtha) of the word ‘food’ is preferable to an implied meaning (lakṣaṇārtha). The two birds are said to be friendly and merged (sayujā) with each other. This clearly refers to the Human Incarnation since God and the soul (human-component in the Incarnation) love each other like friends (sakhāyā) and they have also merged together to become one. Friendship is said to be the second-last step of devotion (Sakhyamātma nivedanam...).

In this context of the Human Incarnation, the two birds representing God and the soul are mentioned. The merging between them is perfect, as far as our imagination goes. But, beyond our imagination, dualism between God and the soul exists, even in that perfect merging in the Incarnation. If the human being-component develops an ego, the God-component will quit it, as in the case of Paraśurāma. If the human being-component conquers its ego, the perfectly merged state continues forever, as in the case of Rāma, who is said to be a complete Incarnation (Pūrṇa Avatāra). In the case of an ordinary human being, only one bird, which is the soul, exists. This soul is the awareness generated from the liked food eaten by it.
36. Scientific technology reveals awareness to be work

Awareness and the game of thoughts are well-explained as the special work form of inert energy. Awareness is the transfer of information from senses to the mind and this point is demonstrated in the case of a robot. The electronic circuits in the processor (computer) of the robot are smiliar to the brain and nervous system. Inert electrical energy gets converted into the work-form of sensing information from the surroundings, which is the ‘awareness’ of the robot. Thus, the generation of inert energy in the human body and its functioning in the brain to produce the patterns of thoughts is well-understood by comparing it with the technology of a robot. In the analysis of the items of the imaginable creation, science and its discoveries play the ultimate role. Hence, awareness is just a specific work form of inert energy and inert energy is the first item of creation of the unimaginable God (Tat tejo’sṛjata...—Veda).

[ernestm]

Unimaginable awareness is the awareness of the unimaginable God

The word ‘unimaginable awareness’ used above does not mean that the awareness is unimaginable. The word awareness is only taken in the sense of the action of thinking, which is done by the unimaginable God. It simply means that the unimaginable God did an action which is the process of thinking. There are only two items: (a) the unimaginable God as the subject or the doer and (b) the action of thinking done by the unimaginable God.

Since the absolute God is unimaginable, He cannot be the imaginable relative awareness. The action of thinking also cannot be this relative awareness because there is no place for the relative awareness in the subject and hence, there is no place for the relative awareness in the work done by the subject. In the case of the imaginable soul, the subject is imaginable awareness and the work done by the subject is also imaginable awareness. In the case of God, there is no place for the imaginable awareness anywhere.


Parabrahman is defined as the absolutely real-unimaginable-non-mediated God (Paramārtha-sadanūhyam anupādhikaṃ Parabrahma). The action of such unimaginable God is wishing to create the world to get rid of the boredom arising out of loneliness and to have some entertainment. Such wishing or thinking is also simple thinking like the thinking of a soul. The soul wishes to construct a house to get rid of the boredom of inaction and get entertainment. The process of thinking seems to be common to both the unimaginable God and the ordinary soul. In reality, God’s process of thinking is not this relative awareness at all. Relative awareness does not exist at all, either in God’s process of thinking or in God, the thinker. Due to this common point of thinking, the unimaginable God may be misunderstood to be an ordinary soul or an ordinary soul may be misunderstood to be the unimaginable God. Due to the common aspect of a white shining appearance, the pearl shell may be mistaken to be silver or silver may be mistaken to be a pearl shell. Both illusions are possible, but in different places.

Cit is understood to be thinking (saṃjñānam) or noticing a stored thought (smaraṇam). So, cit can mean the thinking of God or the thinking of a soul because the verb-form of cit, which is cetati or cetayate, stands for thinking, in general. Thus, based on the root-meaning (vyutpatti or yoga) cit can refer to the thinking of God as well as the soul. Let us fix this word cit to mean the thinking of God alone and not of the soul. Such fixing of a word to mean only a certain thing is called rūḍhi (fixing by convention). So, the use of the word cit to mean the thinking of God becomes a yoga rūḍha usage. In other words, this usage satisfies both the root meaning (yoga) and is also fixed (rūḍhi) to mean a particular thing (the thinking of the unimaginable God).

The word paṅkajam means, that which is born of mud (paṅka). Both the lotus and the snail are born from the mud in a pond and so; both can be called paṅkajam, by yoga (root meaning). But, by convention (rūḍhi), this word is fixed to mean only a lotus. Thus, using the word paṅkajam for a lotus satisfies both yoga and rūḍhi and hence, the usage is a yoga rūḍha usage. The snail can also be said to be paṅkajam based on yoga (root meaning), but such a usage has no rūḍhi; i.e., the word paṅkajam is not conventionally fixed to mean a snail. Hence, the lotus is treated to be the original meaning of the word paṅkajam, whereas, a snail is its apparent meaning.

Similarly, cit can be fixed to mean the action of thinking of the unimaginable God to make it a yoga rūḍha usage. Ātmā can mean the unimaginable God, as we see in the Vedic statement “Ātmana ākāśaḥ”. God is said to be Ātman since God is very important in creation as the soul is very important in the body. Therefore, Cidātmā (Cit + Ātmā) means the original non-mediated unimaginable God, doing the action of thinking. However, with such a definition of the unimaginable God, there is a risk of generalizing that whoever thinks, is the unimaginable God. For instance, since the soul also thinks, we may conclude that the soul is also the unimaginable God. To avoid this error, the soul can be called cidābhāsa because it is not really the unimaginable God even though it exhibits the process of thinking (cit), which we have fixed to mean the thinking of the unimaginable God alone (yoga rūḍha). Thus, the thinking of the soul becomes an example of an illusion.

But when the illusion is removed, the soul does not become the unimaginable God. When the illusion is removed, the soul realizes that it is not the unimaginable God. The illusion is removed when we realise that we have fixed cit to mean only the thinking of God and we have excluded the thinking of the soul. Hence, the word cit cannot be used in the case of the soul, in that real fixed sense. Therefore, thinking of the soul must be concluded to be a false cit, which is an illusion of the real cit.

This whole process, which is well-aligned with the Advaita theory, is agreeable, but the concluded result should not be as they have done in the case of the illusory snake and the real rope. The Advaita philosophers should fix the concept first and only then take an appropriate simile or example for comparison. A simile can be taken for a partial concept too, as there is no need for all the aspects of the similie to match with all the aspects of the original concept. Unfortunately, Advaitins, give the simile first and go on applying all the points of the simile to the original concept, so that, finally, a false concept results!


The Ṛg Veda mentions two birds sitting on the same tree. It is a simile for God and a soul existing in the same body of the Incarnation. The two birds are merged together due to love (Dvā-suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā...). It is said that one bird is eating the food liked by it and the other is ‘shining’, without eating any food. Here, the awareness of the soul-bird is maintained by the food eaten by it. The food is converted into energy upon oxidation, which is transformed into awareness in its functioning brain and nervous system. In the other God-bird, there is no need of either food or a brain and nervous system to produce awareness because the awareness of God is merely the process of thinking done by the omnipotent-unimaginable God.

The food mentioned is the food liked by the bird. It is interpreted by scholars to mean that the soul-bird performs deeds and so, inevitably receives fruits of its deeds. But if the fruits eaten by the soul-bird were the fruits of the soul’s deeds, then the bird would have to eat both liked (merits) and disliked (sins) fruits. Taking the literal meaning (vācyārtha) of the word ‘food’ is preferable to an implied meaning (lakṣaṇārtha). The two birds are said to be friendly and merged (sayujā) with each other. This clearly refers to the Human Incarnation since God and the soul (human-component in the Incarnation) love each other like friends (sakhāyā) and they have also merged together to become one. Friendship is said to be the second-last step of devotion (Sakhyamātma nivedanam...).

In this context of the Human Incarnation, the two birds representing God and the soul are mentioned. The merging between them is perfect, as far as our imagination goes. But, beyond our imagination, dualism between God and the soul exists, even in that perfect merging in the Incarnation. If the human being-component develops an ego, the God-component will quit it, as in the case of Paraśurāma. If the human being-component conquers its ego, the perfectly merged state continues forever, as in the case of Rāma, who is said to be a complete Incarnation (Pūrṇa Avatāra). In the case of an ordinary human being, only one bird, which is the soul, exists. This soul is the awareness generated from the liked food eaten by it.
36. Scientific technology reveals awareness to be work

Awareness and the game of thoughts are well-explained as the special work form of inert energy. Awareness is the transfer of information from senses to the mind and this point is demonstrated in the case of a robot. The electronic circuits in the processor (computer) of the robot are smiliar to the brain and nervous system. Inert electrical energy gets converted into the work-form of sensing information from the surroundings, which is the ‘awareness’ of the robot. Thus, the generation of inert energy in the human body and its functioning in the brain to produce the patterns of thoughts is well-understood by comparing it with the technology of a robot. In the analysis of the items of the imaginable creation, science and its discoveries play the ultimate role. Hence, awareness is just a specific work form of inert energy and inert energy is the first item of creation of the unimaginable God (Tat tejo’sṛjata...—Veda).

If you wish to move beyond pop metaphysics, Swami, you would have to refute Kant's definition of transcendental knowledge as meaningful. His explanation of it is in his Critique of Pure Reason.

[Count Lucanor]

If something or someone is unimaginable (unintelligible), how could you think about it and even write about it? This is pure nonsense.

[ernestm]

If something or someone is unimaginable (unintelligible), how could you think about it and even write about it? This is pure nonsense.

lol. Sadly alot of that which people imagine is unintelligible, and even if not, irrational.

[Count Lucanor]

If something or someone is unimaginable (unintelligible), how could you think about it and even write about it? This is pure nonsense.

lol. Sadly alot of that which people imagine is unintelligible, and even if not, irrational.

For something to be intelligible it must be understood, at least in the sense of being something, somewhere, at some time. You cannot imagine something without understanding it is something. Something unimaginable is unintelligible.