Why God created imaginable and unimaginable items?

What is the reason for God to create both imaginable and unimaginable items? The imaginable is created only to give the relative individual identity of the unimaginable entity.

The presence of night gives the relative identity of the day. If everything is made unimaginable, there is no identity of the very existence of unimaginable nature. By this, God wanted the human beings to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature in the creation, which indicates the unimaginable God.

The analysis of creation in the deepest plane exhibits the unimaginable nature and this point is realized by all the scientists. This unimaginable nature forming the deepest plane becomes the ultimate basis or substratum of the Universe.

Therefore, the creation is said to be supported or maintained by the unimaginable God. The boundary of this creation is beyond our vision and imagination and thus becomes unimaginable.

Such boundary is beyond our scope of the imaginable extent of the Universe. Such boundary can be concluded as the unimaginable boundary existing beyond Universe or Creation.

Therefore, we say that the unimaginable God is beyond creation and not at all present in the imaginable extent of the creation. Hence Veda is discarding every imaginable item of the core of the creation existing in the imaginable extent not to be God (Neti Netiâ€Â¦.). Gita also says the same (Mamebhyah Paramavyayam).

This unimaginable God expressed Himself as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva by entering the three created energetic forms. The three forms of the energy – medium are one and the same because the constituting material is energy only. There may be some difference in the forms. The inner absolute God is also one and the same.

Needless to say, Datta stunami is at it again, and I don't have mod powers here to delete this topic. Help, please!

CB, are you aware of the ignore button? I find it very useful. And, BTW, you can always take a peek to see if there is anything worthy of attention. Then click the re-load and your page goes back to ignore.

I agree that sometimes--and without feeling guilty about it--it is necessary to disencumber (to free from a burden, annoyance or trouble)--a new word I recently came across--ourselves, from the physical, mental and spiritual burden of having to read and understand everything, especially things that we find uninteresting, annoying, opaque and difficult to mentally digest.

IS THIS BEING EGOISTIC?
Not at all! But when we choose to do this, there are always the ranters who will judge anyone thinking objectively and creatively of being egoistic. But, as Eckhart Tolle--an expert on egoism--points out: it is OK to face facts, as facts. As long as we do this openly, consciously and with awareness of what we are doing.

Interestingly, the Greek word for 'love' is used over 140 time in the New Testament is 'agape'. It does not mean to like and be friendly with everybody; it simply means to wish them well and to treat them fairly and honestly. When passion and friendship enter a relationship Greeks call it 'eros' (hence 'erotic') and 'philia' (philosophy, philanthropy, Philadelphia (brotherly love) & filial love--all words ending in philia, like hemophilia).

See, below.

I would think it would be easy enough to make a choice to disregard something of no interest rather than build walls around something you decide is not of your liking.
What you put your attention on grows, and that includes the energy of making the point to yourself that you won't include something in your universe as your own creation. One is only burdened by something of their own making. In other words the burden to ones senses, is ones attachment to something. It has nothing to do with the object of perception having control of your choices.
Some children throw tantrums, to try and find a physical way to plug their ears singing lalalalalalalalalala to try and block out the annoyance.
It doesn't take much courage to walk around something if you are without fear and judgment, or if you are conscious of reality, but it does seem difficult for most to face their own creation when it is fragmented into the duality of ideals and annoyances and then stamped into a definition of reality.
For those who need to maintain a separation of idealism and personal opinion, building castle walls will create an illusion of sanctity temporarily, but eventually one must face themselves in the shadows that are cast from their own personal reflections as they mature.

I think you've misunderstood ET's descriptions once again, of consciously being aware of ones own creation and the ego. You've idealized egoic judgment which separates one from their own creation, as personal preference.
The burden of the opposing force, is the separation of God into a me and the other. There is only God. Any time you attempt to ignore God in some form or experience, you idealize and limit God into personal beliefs and images.

This is often the case when anyone finds subjects beyond personal comprehension, labeling them opaque, annoying or difficult to mentally digest. A lack of comprehension renders the mind incapable of connecting with something which is followed by feelings of judgment and the need to justify the separation as the only real choice.

CB, as I asked: are you aware of the ignore button? I find it very useful. And, BTW, you can always take a peek to see if there is anything worthy of attention. Then click the re-load and your page goes back to ignore.

If you do not know how to use it, let me know.

CB, I just took advantage of the ignore-peek-ignore button. Here is all I found from our ego-thinking-judge-of- all truth and ET expert, "Jesus?". Note: J uses the "think" word. How egoic of him!

Speaking to me he wrote Naturally, since "Jesus?" THINKS I always misunderstand everything I read, from now on, I will have to submit anything I write, especially about ET, to "Jesus?" so it can be edited by him to make sure that I am in harmony with the party line. What happened to free speech and the right to take personal responsibility for what one says?

Within the mostly-encumbered rant I THINK I found one useful sentence ...(Shouting joyfully) I AGREE! AND I THANK GOD FOR THE IGNORE-PEEK-IGNORE BUTTON

BTW, beginning Wednesday, next, Jean and I will be heading for Florida--for three weeks.

What is an ignore button? Do you mean just 'ignore'?

He means DS is an ant, and I should ignore him. In short: Ignore-ants!

Please can I have an ignore button for Christmas. (There are only 305 shopping days 'til Christmas).

Yes, I'm aware of the "Ignore this user" buttons. But, the case with DS is not about my not willing to read or understand his posts. I honestly give them a good read before I post a reply, delete or merge his threads. My beef with DS is the way in which he posts, or trolls the forum. He posts here not to discuss his subjects of interest, but more to assert and impose his views over the rest of us; cluttering the board with redundant dogmatism in the process. My job as moderator is to spot this mode of spaming, or any kind of posting behaviour that disturbs the intended purpose of the forum. I can't moderate in some of the sections where he posts, so the best I can do is alert other mods by throwing a red flag. If the thread is worth of discussion, or if there has been interest from other members by way of replies, then I leave it alone. Last Sunday he posted about 12 new threads, or which I deleted 2 and merged 4 or so. But, a more knowledgeble moderator in Theology and other Religious subjects would definetily be welcome, in my opinion. You should take up the job, Lindsay!

Today, 10:09 AM
Post #7| HH, you asked: "What is an ignore button? Do you mean just 'ignore'?"

No. For example, If you want to ignore me: Click on my name, Lindsay, then go to "options", then to "ignore user", then "update ignored users". Then my name will appear on you page with the content blank. If you are curious you can click on it and take look. Click on "Reload" and it will go back to no content.

Oh yes, I know about that (it's a bit like restricting callers on one's mobile, or putting domains into ones email spam bot to block). But I thought that you meant you could selectively ignore posts. If you could, it would help to remove very long posts that you have to page down through, taking ages sometimes. (For example, see the later posts on this page: http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20071&st=450). I suppose that one could use the ignore facility and then reinstate (if that's possible, never tried) when you've gotten over the particular issue.

As one who is interested in the art of creative communication and community building--a la the late Scott Peck--I am willing to do anything I can.

BTW, why are people so shy about telling us what they know, or don't know, about a particular topic? For example, this section is about theology. I am very interested in the subject, I have studied theology under some great teachers, I have read, widely in it, I respect all who have, lay and professional.

Without being dogmatic, I have beliefs about the god-hypothesis, but I am very flexible. I take a broad Christian point of view, but I want to understand what the theologians and thinkers of other faiths--Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, whatever--think. As a unitheist, I am basically a universalist--one with no intention of imposing any kind of organized religion.

BTW, I also respect all people, professionals and lay, who are sincere atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and even fundamentalists, or just plain ignorant of topics having to do with what we are talking about here.

I don't keep track of who believes what, nor do I judge people on the basis of what they do, or don't believe. And I have no interest in threatening people with the fear of god or gods in order to convert them. But, for purposes of communication, it is helpful to know a little background. I am interested in the kind of broad spirituality which I sincerely feel will help make the world a better and safer place for all of us.

I think you told us once, but I have forgotten what your stand is on matters spiritual, theological, biblical and religious. All your profile tells us is that you are interested in politics and world events--are you trained in this field?--and in BrainMeta, The consciousness Singularity. How is the latter related to spirituality? If at all.

If people want to dialogue about theology, the Bible or religion with me, it would helpful for me to be able to look in their profile and see a brief outline as to where they are coming from at this point. Not to judge, but to understand their point of view. If you, or others, it would be interesting to know, why?

People need to feel that they are in control when they think they can be a victim to circumstance....

Lindsay, you are obviously one of the 'good guys', but not everyone on the internet is thus. Therefore, people are often reserved with their personal information, as it might be used for untoward purposes.

Nowadays, even just using Google, information can be sourced that could identify individuals and used against them. One example might be that somehow they might be identified, and then a post they made can be associated with them, and then the time/date of that post can be logged. So they have been positioned in time and even space (from ISP info). They might have called in sick at work, and the boss now knows they are alive and kicking on BrainMeta - but NOT AT WORK! Issues can be even more sinister. And some people just want to avoid these problems. Others are just personally shy, or inadequate, or trawlers; the list is long.

Personally, I have been releasing more info over the past few months, because really I have much less to lose nowadays, except a bit of face, and no-one can see that anyway, at least not in real time!

Good point, Hey Hey. But Lindsay, to answer your question about my thoughts on spirituality, I do believe it is as important in man as knowledge is.

My experience with people, is that communication reveals where one is at now, regardless of any type of bibliography.
Obviously if we are speaking of the Bible and the way one interprets it, reading something does not give one understanding or experience. Reading someones history may give you some idea of where someone has been, but then people often pack their resume with lots of information and lord knows most people don't make a career out of their past, nor do they remember everything they have been through.
Those that have tried to make a career out of their past and of the Bible or Religion have by historic example, made a poor example of it..
When it comes to Theology, a good man can often make a pissing contest out of his comparisons in knowledge, opinion and belief as one would with any other subject.
But in any case I find that Lindsay strays from the subject at hand, and leans toward the subject of himself in every respect.

I don't say this out of judgment, but of my experience and understanding thru the reading of his profile and the content of his posts..

I think folks can get stuck on questions about why God would create the universe, and what would compel him or her to do something else... Because in asking these questions, we are asking what would compel God to do something that is counterintuitive to what we see and know to be true in our own lives, and in our own world. The original poster mentioned Brahman, the 'supreme spirit' in the Hindu religion... Brahman's general worldview and day to day struggles are said to be practically the same as our own! Only the size is different. If we decide instead that our God and 'creator' has nearly the same viewpoint as our own, his or her actions and motivations became much more understandable. Did God consciously 'create' us? Or did we grow and evolve as a living part of God instead? In much the same way that our bodies grow, and change over time, in the same way that our bodies did? What would our cells think of our actions and motivations? Why does God get drunk and give us crappy food for nourishment? Why would God not provide us with the things we need to grow and stay healthy instead? Is God dead, or does he hate us?

And then we have our own bodies, which we like to pretend we understand, but actually haven't a clue about what motivated the tiny living things inside of us. Do our white blood cells in fact play the very same role that we attribute to the enforcing and unseen 'angels' of this world? Knowing the nature of "God" and working on his behalf even if 'he' is unaware of their actions altogether... Is this living thing working in the best interest of our shared living host organism? If so his or her contract is renewed and perhaps promoted, if not into the outer blackness it must go...

this topic of imaginable and unimaginable reminded me of a salvinorin a trip report i read a while back, and a personal salvia experience. the effect was that it forces the subject to imagine or meditate on or visit a plane of existsnce that is infinitely small compared to the persons normal plane. if our consciousness shrinks to the view from the size of a skin cell, we would be blasted into seeing a landscape so out there that i would call that a mindfuck. from this view, a whole human being might be a universe in comparison.
but i guess a skin cell doesnt see the universe...just as we might not see the vastness of whatever god is.

Exactly! To that skin cell, WE ARE the universe.

Our consciousness = "third eye" of our body

God's consciousness = "third eye" of our universe

Our body = "universe to our 'citizens' "

God's body = universe to us

To our citizens, our singular consciousness is the mind of God, as only we can affect change within our own bodies. "We" are not truly part of our bodies... we are all-seeing and all-knowing overseers i.e. God.

Just as the Hindus believe with Brahman! "His" worldview and daily struggles are EXACTLY the same as our own... only the size is different.

I wonder what God's God looks like... :-)

I agreed with your post on seeing god; I almost went a little schizo myself before I figured it out

God is always unimaginable and unknowable for any human being

God is always unimaginable and unknowable for any human being and under any circumstances because He is beyond the dimensions of space and time. This is very much stressed in the Veda and the Gita. There is no second thought about this point and Shankara also said the same when He said that God could be understood only in deep sleep. In deep sleep (Sushupti) there is no entity that understands (Jnata) because the process of understanding (Jnanam) disappears. When the process of burning disappears, there is no fire. If you say that the process of knowing itself is the knower, then also the knower is absent because there is no process of knowing in deep sleep. The knower can no more be a knower if the knower loses the process or quality of knowing. Then the knower is converted into an inert item in deep sleep. Infact, this is true according to science also because the knower or process of knowing is converted into inert energy in deep sleep. Shankara means by His statement that God is unknown as indicated by deep sleep, in which a state of total ignorance remains, indicating that one is totally ignorant about God (Sushuptyekasiddhah…). You cannot say that the knower or the process of knowing (knowledge) itself is God, because in that case, God is not eternal but vanishes daily (converted into inert energy) and is born daily (inert energy is converted into the knower or knowledge). This is not acceptable because God is eternal.

To evaluate the unknown answer [in Mathematics], you represent the answer by X and then get the answer for X using the given data. But in the case of God, the answer will always be unknowable and unimaginable. The link between the unknowable God and the knowable items of the world is also unknowable and hence no data related to God can be knowable. In the Mathematical problem, since the answer is knowable, the data related to the knowable answer is also knowable with the help of which the knowable [unknown] answer can be evaluated. But that is not the case with God. Hence, any knowable item of the creation can be made as the representative of God. The only knowable experience about God is that God exists.

I agree Anton. Our entire universe is a dream of God... Are you a lucid sleeper Anton? I am lucky enough to be one. I pow-wow with the spirits and learn from them while sleeping, and I explore my nightmares fully, without any fear...

The dream world is our other half... It is when those that dwell within us live their lives, and it is when we truly travel and explore the universe...

To God, world does not exist &the same world exists with respect to soul
God always exists

When Shankara came, the Buddhists negated both God and world. The immediate requirement was to establish the existence of God. The reason is that there is no dual possibility regarding the existence of God. God always exists. But, the world has the dual possibility. In one sense, with respect to God, world does not exist and the same world exists with respect to soul in other sense. Therefore, even if the existence of world is denied, it is correct with respect to God. But, the existence of God should not be negated in any sense.

Therefore, Shankara accepted the non existence of the world and in such case it must be with respect to God. Shankara never touched the angle of souls here. If the world is unreal, there must be somebody to realize the absence of this world. That somebody must be God only because the world is unreal for God only. Therefore, the awareness of God only is referred by Shankara and not the awareness of the soul in this context.

grumble grumble

Missed your post the first time, sorry. Good to know I'm not the only God-seeing schizo on these forums!

Hi Anton, I'm not sure if I agree with you. You're citing the teachings of Buddhism, a religion whose beliefs and teachings I hold in very high esteem. However, it's a religion. Religions are things of man, not things of God- they are flawed, imperfect, and temporary... Just like man. As you probably are aware, the teachings of Buddha were passed down orally from monk to monk for generations, and at one point were known only by one very arrogant monk, who chose not to share the knowledge freely and no doubt added a layer of his own human distortion and bias. In any case, all I'm saying is that if you choose to crouch behind the doctrines of a single religion and decide it to be the lone voice of truth, you will be wrong.

I would never say that I know the mind of God, and you would say that it is in fact unknowable... But if I do in fact have the general idea of the nature of God... Then I actually know him very well. For his mind and his perspective are very much the same as my own. Only the size is different. In my viewpoint, for reality, the shilip, the universe, whatever 'this' is to still exist, it must in fact be VERY streamlined. It must be VERY sustainable. It must be the same thing, over and over and over. It must be a fractal. We must not create new sets of laws and ideas to describe things too small to see, and things too big to comprehend- we should instead use things we already know to be true to describe them.

Do you know the difference between a raster (bitmap) graphic and a vector graphic? A raster graphic would describe a digital photo or every image on the web... it's saved as a table with as many cells as pixels, and each cell contains the hexadecimal code that describes the color of that pixel. What this means is, if you shrink the image too much, or expand it too much, it goes straight to hell and completely falls apart. (Because computers aren't so good at deciding what the new, added pixels should look like). Raster graphics are not scalable and they're not reusable or repeatable. Alternatively, a vector graphic is described by a set of equations and formulas that will re-draw the image to any size, over and over and over, without a single pixel ever being lost. It is sleek, elegant, and far far more useful... vectors are fit for use on business cards and billboards alike.

What I'm saying is- reality, our universe, our consciousness, etc is like a vector graphic. There are a set number of equations and formulas that describe it, and it can be scaled to any size- cell, human, God, even 'God's God'. Trying to describe these ideas using a series of raster graphics instead is inefficient, wasteful, and ultimately unsustainable. Systems that contain excessive redundancy, or too many unique elements, will ultimately fall apart, over time (look at every human empire that ever existed on this planet). We would not even be here now if this was the case- 'reality' would have collapsed on itself long ago.

oh no, that was for the other person

Well fine, screw you then ;-)

I kid, I kid...

Buddha kept silent about God indicating that God is unimaginable. This means that the existence of God is accepted but the imaginable possibility is not accepted. But, the followers of Buddha took that the existence of God is also not accepted. The reason is that anything exists if it is imaginable only. That which is unimaginable does not exist. This is the norm of the psychology of general public. Buddha also propagated that the creation does not exist with respect to God. Therefore, the followers of Buddha have taken that neither God nor the creation exists. This resulted in Shunyavada, which means that nothing exists. This is the result of misunderstanding of Buddha and the result is misinterpretation.

When Shankara came, this was the situation and every one became an atheist of extreme. Generally, atheist negates the existence of God but not the existence of the creation. The followers of Buddha are extreme because not only God but also the creation is negated. The followers of Shankara accept the existence of God but negate the existence of creation. The atheists are vice-versa, who accept the existence of creation but negate the existence of God.


The followers of Buddha negate the existence of both God and creation. The followers of Ramanuja and Madhva accept the existence of both God and creation. Thus, there are four categories:

1) The followers of Buddha negate both God and creation

2) The atheists negate God but accept creation

3) The followers of Shankara accept God but negate creation

4) The followers of Ramanuja and Madhva accept both God and creation


Neither Buddha nor Shankara nor Ramanuja and Madhva misunderstood truth. But, their followers and atheists have misunderstood truth and misinterpreted truth. The truth is that God exists but is unimaginable. The creation does not exist with respect to God but exists with respect to the souls. The soul can not negate the existence of the world because it is a part and parcel of the world. If the soul negates the world it negates itself, which is meaningless. Therefore, you cannot give a single statement about the existence of the world. You cannot demand us to say whether the world exists or does not exist. A single angle is impossible in the case of creation. You cannot conclude about the existence or non-existence of the world. Such a situation is represented by the Mithya, which means neither it is existent nor non-existent. It is a special case. This is the concept of Shankara about the world (Sadasat Vilakshana). This is the concept of Buddha, Ramanuja and Madhva also because all these four are incarnations of the same God.

The total concept is known to all the four incarnations. But according to the then existing situation, a convenient part of the concept is stressed. This does not mean that the other part of the concept is negated. The silence about the other part of the concept is due to the requirement of the then existing situation. If the total concept is stressed, people may not digest. Therefore, based on the relevant requirement, the relevant part is only stressed. This mechanism is called as psychology, which must be followed by the teacher. This serves the purpose and the first generation of the followers were always rectified.

But, the other generations of the followers of the same school always misunderstand due to the absence of the original preacher of the school. To clarify the misunderstanding, God appears again and again. This process is continuous and God also gets the opportunity of continuous engagement.

Wow you are every bit as obnoxious as a fundamentalist Christian. "I know it's right because that's what it says in the bible!" And you knows it's right because Buddha said so! Guess what. Buddha was a man.

But you can be right. God is unknowable. I guess that means further discussion is meaningless.

God is Unknowable

In the beginning Brahman (God) was One and alone. Only Brahman knows about Brahman and this is the meaning of the Vedic statement, “Brahmavit Brahmaiva Bhavati”. But this statement is misinterpreted and people say that “He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman”. This is not the correct meaning because the Veda says that Brahman cannot be known by the senses, mind, intelligence or logic (Yato Vachah, Nachakshusha, Apraapya Manasaa, Namedhayaa, Naisha Tarkena etc.).

The Gita says “Maamtu Veda Na kaschana”, which means that no body knows Brahman. The reason for this is that Brahman is beyond space. The imagination or intelligence of any human being cannot cross the three dimensional space. Therefore, no human being can imagine Brahman, which is beyond the space. The space was produced from Brahman as said in the Veda (Aatmanah Akaasah). Unless the space is dissolved, one cannot perceive or imagine Brahman. Unless the pot, which is the effect, is dissolved, its cause, which is the lump of mud cannot be imagined. When space dissolves, the creation also dissolves and no body remains to perceive or know Brahman. The authority for such incapability of human beings is the Veda and the Gita.

Now, the atheists may say that that which cannot be known might not exist at all. For this, the Veda answers “Astheetyeva Upalabdhavyah” which means that Brahman makes the people know its existence, if not its details. How? It is done through the human incarnation. If this is not done, all the human beings will be atheists. The human incarnation exhibits certain things, which are beyond our imagination, thereby indicating the existence of that Brahman, which is beyond imagination. Such exhibition is necessary for the atheists and this is the main aim of all the super powers of the human incarnation. There is no need of such exhibition for any theist.

Some scholars argue that there is no referrence of human incarnation in the Veda. It is not correct. The Veda says “Ajayamaano Bahudha Vijaayate” which means that the Lord, who has no birth, is born through several forms. The Veda also says “Tadeva Anu Pravisat” which means that Brahman entered the world as an individual soul. Some scholars have misinterpreted this text also, stating that it means that Brahman entered the creation in the form of all living beings and not as the human incarnation. Such interpretation is wrong because the Veda says that a human being is born from the food derived from the plants (Annat Purushah). The plants are modifications of the five elements. Brahman cannot be born from food. Therefore Brahman created the inert universe and the living beings in the beginning itself for entertainment. On seeing the cinema of creation, Brahman was not satisfied and therefore entered the world as a specific soul, which is the human incarnation. Moreover the Gita says that the creation (Prakriti) is of two parts. One part is the inert nature called as Apara. The second part is the life called as Para. Prakriti means creation. The Para Prakriti means the best part of the creation.