 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
It has been Man's eternal problem to define, if not prove the very
existence of God using the tools of his intelligence and logical reasoning.
Even though the very need to bring God within the confines of a logical
proof may be debated, the fact remains that amongst us there remains a
large number who find it impossible to accept any concept without proof or
direct experience. It may be because the kind of learning system that we
have been exposed to, gives much emphasis to analytical thinking instead of
the development of our intuitive faculties. Our mindsets have become
unconsciously molded through years of such training and thus for us a truth
without proof is no truth at all!. So within the context of such a state
of affairs how can we possibly define God and prove his existence? What
would be his functions & attributes? In the following sections an attempt
is made to answer these and similar thought provoking questions.
GOD AS THE CAUSE OF ALL CAUSES
Let us first examine the argument for the existence of God as the cause of
all causes:
1. For anything to exist there has to be a cause.
2. God is the primordial cause or the cause of all causes.
A mere extension of the above argument would apparently give the impression
of disproving the existence of God. That is, extending the argument we get
the paradoxical statement - In order for God to exist there has to be a
cause, hence God cannot be the primordial cause. This argument against the
existence of God though seemingly logical is faulty on closer examination.
Its main fault lies in the fact that it presupposes the existence of Time
before the existence of God.
If an event A is the cause of event B, event A should necessarily have
happened BEFORE event B. Let us consider the case where event B is the
birth of Time (or change, since Change and Time are synonymous here). So
what would be the nature of event A as the cause of event B in this case?
"Event" A would no longer be an event (since an event is a point in time at
which a change has taken place)! Since Time and Change itself did not exist
before event B, the cause of event B, that is A would lose it's status as
an event and would just be the primal cause A. For obvious reasons (since
Time itself did not exist) there cannot be an event before A and hence
there cannot be a cause for A.
THE NATURE OF GOD
Let us go back to the question of the nature of A. What would this
pre-Time scenario be like? Was there any matter existing then? If there
was any matter existing, then all matter in existence would necessarily be
at absolute zero temperature thereby freezing all particle motion (since
motion would require the existence of Time). The existence of matter would
necessitate the existence of space and gravity. Now the existence of
gravity without time would create certain complications since our
understanding of gravity today is still not perfect. If there is a
particle/wave nature to gravity then time most certainly have to exist
alongside matter-space-gravity (since there would be motion of
gravitational particles/waves). On the other hand if gravity is the
space-time curvature and not a force at all even then Time has to exist for
the existence of matter-space-gravity (since gravity is a product of
space-time). Therefore we can conclude that in the pre-Time scenario
matter did not exist. In other words there was absolute nothingness prior
to the existence of Time. This attributeless infinite (infinitesimal would
be equally true) and absolute nothingness which is the cause of all causes
is what we can term as God. This is pure abstract, unimaginable,
intangible Consciousness. This realization has been wonderfully expounded
in the Vedas.
Now, how can we understand this Supreme Consciousness? Why is this
Consciousness unimaginable? What tools do we have to conceive this Ultimate
Abstraction if at all it is possible to conceive? Even though of elemental
simplicity this Infinite Nothingness is unimaginable since the imaginer's
role as an outside observer automatically negates the concept of
Nothingness. It is impossible to separate the observer from the Observed.
So what is the way out? Complete mergence with this Consciousness seems to
be the answer. Experiencing this Consciousness by becoming It. Though it
seems to be a rather lofty target it is by no means unattainable. The path
to mergence is beyond the scope of this article. It would be sufficient to
say that many before us from different cultures and sections of humanity
have attained this state of mergence.
Now to the question of the tools which are at our disposal with which we
can attempt to study this Ultimate Abstraction. Which is the science which
we are all familiar with yet as abstract as the great Abstraction under
study? What would the properties of this science be? As mentioned above
in the pre-Time scenario this Consciousness existed as pure Nothingness, of
pristine & elemental simplicity. So the closest analogy we can draw is the
number zero, and the abstract science is none other than elementary
mathematics. So how can, from this womb of Nothingness, this infinite
cosmos come to be? Let us go back to math and examine something called the
number line which most of us might have learnt at school. The number line
is a line stretching to infinity at both ends (to positive infinity &
negative infinity) containing all the real numbers including zero. It is
something like shown below:
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------>
-Infinity ...... -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
......+Infinity
Since for every positive number there is a negative number of equal
magnitude, then the sum of all numbers would have to be zero. In other
words Zero contains All. Nothingness contains everything.
The same holds true if we take the case of imaginary numbers (of the form
a+ib, where i = square root of negative 1) and consider there number line:
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------->
-ixInfinity .....-3i -2i -i 0 +i +2i
+3i.......+ixInfinity
It is interesting to note that the only common element among the real and
imaginary numbers is zero. If we put this imaginary number line (imaginary
axis) perpendicular to the real number line (real axis) such that both are
intersecting at zero we get something called the Gaussian complex plane.
Looking at this plane comprising of the real and imaginary axes it would
seem to us that zero is the center from which light rays emanate to all
infinities.
Now let x be any number, real or imaginary. x can be expressed as:
x = x + 0
Thus despite the grandeur of Nothingness, any and every number contains
this Nothingness in its completeness. Now let us think of the things,
people, souls, etc. around us as parts of a grand Whole, little windows to
a grand scene. Aren't all these little parts analogous to numbers in the
complex plane? Ofcourse, there would seem the frightful possibility of
equating inanimate matter and living beings! But would there? The
Gaussian plane, as mentioned earlier, comprises of the real axis (the axis
of matter and all things tangible), and the imaginary axis (the axis of the
soul, its karmic value etc.) and they intersect only at Zero.
Why does this Consciousness have to be attributeless? For the same reason
that the number zero is neither positive nor negative. Does that mean this
Consciousness is neither good nor bad, neither male nor female, neither
beautiful nor ugly etc.? Precisely! But, at the same time it is also true
that this Consciousness will be contained in things good & bad, male &
female, beautiful & ugly etc. So it would seem that this Consciousness
permeates the entire universe from the microscopic to the macroscopic
levels. It is as complete at the level of quarks and neutrinos as It is at
the level of quasars and galaxies.
The Reality is beyond all dualities and the illusion is in the scales of
our perception!
-- Hari Kumar hari1@mbox2.singnet.com.sg
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|