The point of inapplicability of worldly logic in God is the reason to say that God is unimaginable

[dattaswami]

SAME GOD IN ALL INCARNATIONS AND COMMON AWARENESS IN ALL LIVING BEINGS

The Gita says that the same God exists in different human incarnations and looks like divided (Avibhaktam Vibhakteshu). But, God is not divided because God is not an imaginable item with spatial dimensions. God, being unimaginable, exists totally in each human incarnation and the concept of division, which is applied to imaginable items of the world, cannot apply to God, who is beyond space. Hence, the logic applied to discuss the imaginable components of imaginable creation fails in God as said in the Veda (Atarkyah…, Naishaatarkena…). This point of inapplicability of worldly logic in God is the reason to say that God is unimaginable, the basis being absence of spatial dimensions in God. This is the fundamental foundation concept of the entire spiritual knowledge and nobody should forget this and make God imaginable.

If you make God imaginable, different people will think different imaginable items as God due to multiplicity of imaginable items. The unity is the unique characteristic of unimaginable God and hence only God is one. The above verse of the Gita is also applied to the soul existing in different living beings. Here, the soul should be taken as the final filtrate of pure awareness after filtering it from all the qualities. Such pure awareness is qualitatively one and the same in any living being since such pure awareness is basically the nervous energy. This nervous energy is fundamentally a stream of electrical pulses travelling through the neuro cells, which is estimated at about 55 milli volts. The brain, the spinal cord and the network of nerves constitute the whole system.

It is scientifically proved that the awareness is only a specific work form of energy functioning in the specific nervous system. If this system is absent, awareness is not at all generated as in the case of a stone. If you say awareness as God, do you mean that God is a generated product of a materialized system? The logic of ancient India was not so developed as much as the present Science and this is the reason for the ancient Indian philosophers to think that the pure awareness is beyond the items of creation and to conclude that it is God. This pure awareness is given top most place in the items of creation and hence, it is called as the best item of the nature (Para Prakriti).

The Gita divides the nature (Prakriti) into two sub-categories and one is ‘Apara’ where as the other one is ‘Para’. It [Pure Awareness] can be seen as energetic pulse through the scientific instruments and the Veda says that scientists having very sharp intelligence have seen it (Drushyate tvagraya buddhya). Even the Gita says the same (Pashyanti Jnana Chakshushah). Even the Brahma Sutras established this fact saying that God cannot be the soul since the reason opposes it (Netaronupattheh). The reason is that God is unimaginable and soul is imaginable. Thus, the basic concept of misconstrued Advaita Philosophy gets smashed by the advanced experimental Science. There is no difference between the present Science and the ancient logic (Tarka Shastram) since both deal with the analysis of creation only. If the ancient philosopher, who is scholar in ancient logic, criticizes Science, it means that he is criticizing himself only.

However, the soul existing in all the living beings can stand as a comparison for the God existing in various human incarnations present in the same time. The simile allows only the comparison in one aspect without touching the other aspects. If you compare the face to Moon, the only permitted aspect is the pleasantness of the face and the Moon. Other differences should not be touched. The Moon appears in the night only but the face is seen in the day also. The Moon has black spots and the face is plain. The Moon disappears once in a month through growth and reduction.

The face is not so. Hence, the only aspect that should be taken here is the common existence of the same pure awareness qualitatively in all the living beings, which can be compared to the common existence of the same unimaginable God in all the contemporary human incarnations. Coming to the differences, the pure awareness is quantitatively different in all the living beings in terms of its units like calories or ergs or joules etc. The awareness in an elephant is quantitatively very much compared to that of an ant. But, in the case of God in all the contemporary human incarnations, God is same qualitatively and quantitatively since these two concepts do not apply in unimaginable God. Like this, several other differences can be contemplated.
Living Beings Differ Based on Qualities

Madhva told that the living beings are different from each other since they exist in different levels. This is based on the levels of the qualities. Good qualities are considered as high level and bad qualities are considered as low level. This pure awareness is mixed with different qualities and hence, the difference in the souls as high and low. All the qualities come under three main headlines i.e., Sattvam, Rajas and Tamas. Sattvam is good whereas Rajas and Tamas are bad. The difference between the souls is due to the difference in the associated qualities as per Madhva. Shankara says that the soul is one and the same in all the living beings and here, we have to take the qualitative unity of the soul in all living beings as the pure awareness. Hence, both are correct from the view of associated qualities and the qualitative unity of pure awareness.

This analysis should be the background in understanding the verse in the Gita, which says that the scholars see the unity in all the living beings like dog, cow, elephant, Brahmin and a non-vegetarian cobbler (Panditaah samadarshinah). This means that you should find the internal true unity in the external true difference. You should respect or reject based on the associated qualities. You can go near a pious cow but you cannot go near a wild dog. The unity of the soul helps you to make an effort to change the qualities of the cobbler to transform him into a Brahmin since the caste is decided by the qualities and the subsequent quality based actions (Guna Karma Vibhagashah – Gita). Ravana is a Brahmin by birth but a cobbler by qualities and actions. Shabari is a cobbler by birth but Brahmin by qualities and actions. Therefore, the caste system should be properly understood with the help of this analysis. In the Gita, in the above verse, while mentioning the cobbler, the word ‘Shvapaka’ is used for the cobbler.

This word means the person, who hunts and eats even the dogs. The dog is the embodiment of faith and helps the humanity. Killing another living being is considered to be the highest sin and non-violence is the top most good quality (Ahimsa Paramodharmah). The respect and rejection is for the qualities and not for the soul, which is the possessor of the qualities. Caste means the classification of these qualities. Basically, there are only two categories or two castes. The caste of good qualities that should be respected and the caste of bad qualities that should be rejected. This verse is often quoted by some people, who argue that a good person and a bad person are equal according to this verse and hence, the bad person should be also respected and worshipped like a good person. Such an ignorant logic results due to improper analysis, which leads to the misunderstanding of the scripture. The photo of Shabari is kept in the worship room in the houses of Brahmins, which indicates the respect to qualities irrespective of the birth. All the sages made ‘Bhrurishrava’, a pot maker as the president of a sacrifice conducted in Naimisha forest (Refer: the Bhagavatam).

When you find a bad person and a good person, it is said that you should find the common soul or pure awareness existing in both. The soul in both has the same power of achieving any quality and rejecting any quality. This indicates the possibility of transformation of bad soul into good soul in which bad qualities are rejected and good qualities are achieved. By looking at the soul, you are reminded about the possibility of transformation, which is your duty. After transformation, you can respect the good soul.

Shri Phani: You say that Sattvam is good and Rajas and Tamas are bad. Sattvam represents Vishnu, Rajas represents Brahma and Tamas represents Shiva. Does this mean that Vishnu is good where as Brahma and Shiva are bad?

Shri Swami: The same word can have different meanings in the Sanskrit language. As far as the qualities are concerned, these three words stand in the above said sense. When you apply these three words in the case of the activities carried on by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, different meanings come in to picture due to different angles of application. Rajas means the action (Rajah Karmani Bharata). Brahma is involved always in the action of creation. Creation is an activity, which is dynamic. Sattvam stands for knowledge and also maintenance of the existing status. Vishnu is involved in the maintenance of the world and also administration, which involves sharp analytical knowledge. Tamas stands for lack of discrimination as in the sleep, which is ignorance (Tamastvajnanajam viddhi). Shiva is involved in destroying the whole creation in the end without any discrimination. Hence, based on these meanings, the same three words are used for the three divine forms of the same unimaginable God.

[Iwannaplato]

If you make God imaginable, different people will think different imaginable items as God due to multiplicity of imaginable items.

And yet, DS does this: for example he talls people that God made the universe, including us, for his entertainment.
That's something concrete and specific about God and it involves mind reading the motives of God to assert this. We do things for entertainment, so now we think God is like us in this core motive for making the universe.

[dattaswami]

And yet, DS does this: for example he talls people that God made the universe, including us, for his entertainment.
That's something concrete and specific about God and it involves mind reading the motives of God to assert this. We do things for entertainment, so now we think God is like us in this core motive for making the universe.

God only said in Veda that statement. Veda is the proof. God alone knows about HImself. He speaks about HImself in Veda. Also He comes to this world in human form to preach about Himself. He is the speaker about HImself.

[dattaswami]

If you make God imaginable, different people will think different imaginable items as God due to multiplicity of imaginable items.

And yet, DS does this: for example he talls people that God made the universe, including us, for his entertainment.
That's something concrete and specific about God and it involves mind reading the motives of God to assert this. We do things for entertainment, so now we think God is like us in this core motive for making the universe.

Even though GOd is unimaginable, HE is imaginable to Himself. He can speak about Himself to us. The purpose of creation is entertainment, that He told in Veda. What is the issue here? God only told about that...

[Iwannaplato]

Even though GOd is unimaginable, HE is imaginable to Himself. He can speak about Himself to us. The purpose of creation is entertainment, that He told in Veda. What is the issue here? God only told about that...

some human(s) wrote the Veda. And you a human read the Veda and decided it, I would guess, was actually God because everything was correct in the The Veda. So you decided it was correct that God created the universe for his entertainment. But how could you know that this was the case, given that God is unimaginable? You had to trust your imagination about God, to recognize that the Veda was correct. But you don't seem to want other people to talk about God and his attributes, unless they quote the books you have decided are correct. So, we have one human telling other humans not to do as he does. I know this is common in guru culture, do as the guru says not as the guru does. But that commonness does not make it any less self-contradictory.

[dattaswami]

Even though GOd is unimaginable, HE is imaginable to Himself. He can speak about Himself to us. The purpose of creation is entertainment, that He told in Veda. What is the issue here? God only told about that...

some human(s) wrote the Veda. And you a human read the Veda and decided it, I would guess, was actually God because everything was correct in the The Veda. So you decided it was correct that God created the universe for his entertainment. But how could you know that this was the case, given that God is unimaginable? You had to trust your imagination about God, to recognize that the Veda was correct. But you don't seem to want other people to talk about God and his attributes, unless they quote the books you have decided are correct. So, we have one human telling other humans not to do as he does. I know this is common in guru culture, do as the guru says not as the guru does. But that commonness does not make it any less self-contradictory.

You have to examine every statement of the scripture through very sharp and powerful logical analysis. The logical analysis is the basis of the justice. Long logical debates take place in the court to find out the true justice. God always represents the true justice.

[Iwannaplato]

Even though GOd is unimaginable, HE is imaginable to Himself. He can speak about Himself to us. The purpose of creation is entertainment, that He told in Veda. What is the issue here? God only told about that...

some human(s) wrote the Veda. And you a human read the Veda and decided it, I would guess, was actually God because everything was correct in the The Veda. So you decided it was correct that God created the universe for his entertainment. But how could you know that this was the case, given that God is unimaginable? You had to trust your imagination about God, to recognize that the Veda was correct. But you don't seem to want other people to talk about God and his attributes, unless they quote the books you have decided are correct. So, we have one human telling other humans not to do as he does. I know this is common in guru culture, do as the guru says not as the guru does. But that commonness does not make it any less self-contradictory.

You have to examine every statement of the scripture through very sharp and powerful logical analysis. The logical analysis is the basis of the justice. Long logical debates take place in the court to find out the true justice. God always represents the true justice.

As we know, human courts of all kinds are fallible. And this court, composed of humans, is imagining the unimaginable, despite your admonishment not to do precisely that.

[dattaswami]

As we know, human courts of all kinds are fallible. And this court, composed of humans, is imagining the unimaginable, despite your admonishment not to do precisely that.

It is inherent defect of the human beings that one cannot imagine an item not having volume or dimensions. If you want to see God in His original state before creation, then creation shall disappear. In such case along with this creation(universe) you also will disappear and you will be there to see God in His original state. All this is the defect of Human beings only. The first item that came from God is space. Space has to disappear so that one can see God. If space disappears then we also will disappear along with space!!

[Iwannaplato]

As we know, human courts of all kinds are fallible. And this court, composed of humans, is imagining the unimaginable, despite your admonishment not to do precisely that.

It is inherent defect of the human beings that one cannot imagine an item not having volume or dimensions. If you want to see God in His original state before creation, then creation shall disappear. In such case along with this creation(universe) you also will disappear and you will be there to see God in His original state. All this is the defect of Human beings only. The first item that came from God is space. Space has to disappear so that one can see God. If space disappears then we also will disappear along with space!!

It seems like you are trying here to show me how hard it is to imagine God. I am not saying it is easy to imagine God. Nor am I saying it is possible. I am pointing out that YOU say it is impossible and yet you tell us specific traits, including motivations of God. When I point out the contradiction, you mention the Vedas. But these were written by humans. If this is pointed out you say the Veda is the work of God. This means you can recognize God and know it is God's truth, which again means you know the qualities of God.

Secular courts are fallible.
Religious courts, like the one you mentioned, are also fallible.

The number of people involved in a decision does not eliminate this, because humans have patterns of bias, assumptions, fears and so on that even huge numbers of people can share. And they do.

[Advocate]

Worldly logic is rules that always replicate. Logic cannot touch god because Nothing about god ever replicates. God is real as a pattern in a mind and anything more is a metaphysical AND physical category mistake.

[dattaswami]

If this is pointed out you say the Veda is the work of God. This means you can recognize God and know it is God's truth, which again means you know the qualities of God.

No qualities of unimaginable God(Absolute God) is known. Only information about unimaginable God is that He exists. But when He comes in human form(mediated God) we can attribute qualities of the medium to God like kindness etc.

God is imaginable to Himself and is unimaginable to your crude brain only. God, being beyond the space, can never be imagined since your brain can imagine anything having at least the least spatial dimensions. This unimaginable nature continues forever so that ego is always suppressed in you, which helps your spiritual effort. Hence, this is not sadism, but, this is only to help you in your spiritual progress. Similarly, you can’t attain Me by the efforts, which only bring deservingness in you. I will be attained by you whenever I like and My attainment is not a fruit that must be attained by an effort. Hence, you should go on worshiping Me through real love, sacrifice and service without aspiring any fruit in return. Only such devotee will attain Me whenever there is a need in this world for human incarnation.

Unimaginable God is imaginable to Himself and hence before creation, God was imaginable only since no soul other than God existed. He is unimaginable to any other soul in this creation because He is beyond space whereas soul is defined by the space. The reason for God being unimaginable to soul is imaginable! Creation of imaginable item from unimaginable item and entry of unimaginable item in to imaginable item don’t exist in the world as examples. We have only generation and entry between two imaginable items defined by space in the world as examples and we can understand only the phenomena taking place between items defined by space.

The reason for not understanding the phenomena taking place between unimaginable item (which is beyond space) and imaginable item is also unimaginable to be understood. Even though we have understood that why an item is unimaginable, but, we have not understood the unimaginable item becoming an imaginable item. The reason for not understanding unimaginable item is that it is beyond the space. Since the item to be understood is beyond space and the item understanding it is below (controlled or defined by space) space, this conversion becomes unimaginable since, in world, we observe only conversion between two imaginable items only.

If this space-factor disappears, the item to understand (soul) also disappears being a part of the space! The soul is even incapable of understanding the situation through imagination also in assuming the dissolution of space since this very understanding is based on the concept of space only.

[Advocate]

God is real as a pattern in a mind, of which there are as many as there are people who have thought about it. All of them include impossible, mutually exclusive, or ineffable attributes and are therefore all indistinguishable from fiction and should be treated accordingly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have to examine every statement of the scripture through very sharp and powerful logical analysis. The logical analysis is the basis of the justice. Long logical debates take place in the court to find out the true justice. God always represents the true justice.

You are contradicting your OP and yourself;

OP, dattaswami: "The point of inapplicability of worldly logic in God is the reason to say that God is unimaginable".

[dattaswami]

You have to examine every statement of the scripture through very sharp and powerful logical analysis. The logical analysis is the basis of the justice. Long logical debates take place in the court to find out the true justice. God always represents the true justice.

You are contradicting your OP and yourself;

OP, dattaswami: "The point of inapplicability of worldly logic in God is the reason to say that God is unimaginable".

Answer to this is provided here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaprPmzj4Ow