India's Ancient Culture

by Swami Krishnananda

Chapter 11: The Universality of God

The quest of the human mind was the subject with which we began our session yesterday. It was found that the habit of the mind to seek causes behind the effects is an imperative implanted upon it by its very structural pattern. The mind has to seek a cause behind all the effects in the form of events taking place in this world, and inasmuch as the cause is not identical with the effect, the happenings in this world cannot be identified with anything which is of this world itself. The cause of the events in the world has to be outside the world, beyond the world, not identifiable with the world, because if the cause of the events in the world is not separable from the effects, the cause would get merged into the effects. That cannot take place because if the cause gets identified with the effect, there will be no relation between cause and effect.

We noted that there are certain habits of the mind, certain patterns under which it works. It is under the pressure of these patterns of thinking that it becomes obligatory on the part of the mind to accept the presence of a cause that is distinguishable from the effect.

So goes the search for transcendent causes beyond the events in the world, and as they are transcendent, they also are super-physical. I am only briefly outlining what I told you yesterday. The super-physical character of the causes of events in the world follows from the fact that these causes are not in this world. They are outside the world, beyond the world, transcendent to the world. Therefore, they are not physical. They are mental and spiritual. The gods are not physical bodies. They do not touch the ground, as I told you yesterday. They are super-physical, and therefore they can penetrate through matter. Even granite is not an obstacle to the gods. They will pierce through all things due to their subtlety of inner composition.

The spirituality, the mental structure or the superphysical nature of the gods in heaven, follows from the fact of their being not in this world. This is the initial stage of the search for a religious background for the processes in the world, so that in the earliest of stages it looks as if different events have different causes. We are unable to identify one event with another event. They are different. Therefore, the mind thinks that perhaps there are different causes for different events, so we have many gods. In the early phases of the religious development of the human psyche, multiple gods are posited. This is a phenomenon that we will find in the religious history of both the West and the East.

The development advances further into the discovery that it is not essential that independent events should have independent causes. One single event need not have one single cause. Several events can be occasioned by a single cause, just as many functions in the body, our own physical organism, need not necessarily be caused by different factors. One single organism, which is this body of ours, can operate in many ways. We can see, we can hear, we can touch, we can smell, we can walk, we can digest food, and we can speak. So many things we can do almost simultaneously, and these simultaneous activities, apparently differing one from the other, are not caused by different pressure points. There is one pressure point, which is the entire organism.

A universal cause may perhaps be responsible for even the variety of events taking place in the world. Many things in the world need not have many causes in the heavens. There can be only one cause, which is the theistic conclusion of religious discovery. Theism is the acceptance of one God being there as the Creator of the whole universe. The organism of the universe is animated by a single intelligence in the same way as the organism of our physical body is animated by one intelligence. The Mr. so-and-so, you or I, this person, is the animating intelligence behind this physical personality. In a similar manner, the conclusion follows that there is a supreme animating intelligence pervading the whole cosmos, and notwithstanding the fact that there are almost millions of events taking place in the world and there are endless atoms constituting this physical universe, there can be one cause. The theism in religion is the conclusion that God is one, and there cannot be many Gods.

Why should there not be many Gods? What is the harm? Let there be hundreds of Gods. This question may arise in one's mind. If there are many Gods, or even if there are only two Gods, the question of the relationship between one God and another God will arise. How are we to understand the connection of one God with another God? Logical rules require that the perception of two things, or the cognition of the relation between two things, is impossible except in terms of an awareness which is neither the one nor the other. If we have to know the relation between A and B, A and B cannot know the relation, because A is confined to A, and B is confined to B. We are now trying to locate the connecting link between A and B. That link cannot belong to A, nor can it belong to B. It is a different thing, a third element altogether; therefore, the relation between one God and another God can be known only by a third God. That would be to certify the very independence of the so-called two Gods that we have posited. If there are many Gods, or even two Gods, we will have this problem of asserting another God who will be, after all, one God only. So finally, we land on one God. Even if we have tentative assumptions of there being many Gods, finally we are boiling down the whole question into the existence of only one God. Thus, we cannot escape this predicament. Theism reigns supreme.

Now, having accepted that there can be only one God for the whole cosmos, the further question arises as to the relation between God and this world. Yesterday I mentioned that there are certain religions which emphasise the transcendent aspect of God. Devotees of this kind do not wish God to be contaminated by the evils of the world. Why should God come down to the dust of the Earth? Let Him be above in His purity of heaven. For them God is transcendent. This is one stage in religion. The transcendence of God makes God extra-cosmic. An extra-cosmic God is a fashioner of the whole substance of the universe as a carpenter fashions a piece of furniture or a potter makes a pot, etc., so that He becomes the instrumental cause, but not the material cause, of the universe.

A question arises again as to what is the substance out of which the universe is made. We also touched upon this subject yesterday. Out of what substance does God create this universe? Either there is a material independent of God – as there is wood independent of the carpenter or clay independent of the potter – or there is nothing outside God.

There are schools of thought and branches of religion which posit the existence of some matter which is external to God's existence. God fashions this universe out of a clay which is cosmic in its nature, a prakriti, a matrix, some sort of unidentifiable substance. The Sankhya philosophy of India has this doctrine of the prakriti, or the matrix of all creation, independent of purusha, which is the consciousness which is aware of the process of creation. If there is something in front of God as a matter which is the stuff out of which the universe is fashioned, we have the same problem again of the relation between two things. The most difficult thing in philosophy is the question of relation. The question of relation between one thing and another is the crucial point in philosophical studies. Someone wrote a thesis on this single subject: the question of relation. It is impossible to answer the question as to how one thing stands in relation to the other. And so, even if the religious devotion tentatively concludes that there is some matter out of which God creates the world, we have to answer the question: Where does God stand in relation to this matter? It is the same problem. The judge who answers this question will be transcendent to even God Himself. What a predicament!

The Sankhya doctrine does not seem to be a great answer to this problem before us, nor is it possible to believe that God creates the world out of nothing. Sometimes it is held that God does not require any material to create the world. He is a magician who conjures up things even without there being anything at all. If that is the case, the world that has been created by God would be a nullity. There would be no substance. It is a zero, finally. Many philosophers have concluded that perhaps this is the truth. It is better to say that God created this world out of nothing rather than to create a further problem by accepting the existence of something independent of God.

God is all-pervading. The all-pervading nature of God follows from the infinitude of God. If God is not infinite, He would be finite, and all things that are finite are subject to the process of transmutation, change and evolution; and God would also be evolving into something other than God Himself. This would happen if He is finite; therefore, God cannot be finite. He has to be infinite. And because He is infinite, He is all-pervading. If He is all-pervading, there would be nothing to oppose Him as an object.

Yesterday I brought before you an illustration of the peculiar way in which you can understand all-pervadingness. I told you that water pervades the cloth which is dipped in a bucketful of water, but this pervading of the cloth by water does not in any way affect the cloth being independent of the water. So if God pervades the world as water pervades cloth in a bucket full of it, the world will stand independent of God; thus, God would not be all-pervading even then, and His infinitude would be marred. See how many difficulties we have got! Difficulties after difficulties arise.

So what is the question? God pervades the world, not as water pervading cloth in a bucketful of water, but in a different matter altogether. In what manner can we conceive the all-pervadingness of God if not as water pervading cloth? We have to somehow accept that God cannot stand outside this world. The moment God is considered as something standing outside the world, the question of the relation between the two cannot be answered. So the transcendence of God boils down to the imminence of God. God is not merely outside the world in the sense of a transcendent element; He is also the material itself of the world. God becomes the world. He is not merely the instrumental cause, He is also the material cause.

In Vedanta terminology, this involvement of God as both an instrument and a material is known as abina nimitta upadana karana. Abina means non-different, nimitta is instrumental, upadana is material, karana is cause. God is a non-different instrumental as well as material cause of this universe. When we say He is the instrumental cause, we have to understand that He is responsible for the structure of this world. He is responsible for the shape the world has taken, the picture that is in front of us as the world. When we say He is a material cause, we understand thereby that in each and every nook and corner, in every little bit of things in the world, this Infinite is present. The Infinite is present in every little finite particle. The great mantra which we chant every day – pūrṇamadah, pūrṇamidam, pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate; pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇam evāvasisyate – is a metaphorical statement of the way in which God creates the world without actually creating anything outside Him and without Himself getting affected by this creation. From the infinite, the whole infinite universe proceeds. There cannot be two infinites either from the point of view of mathematics or from the point of view of logic. Two infinities are inconceivable because an infinite is that which occupies all space, so when the infinite has occupied all space, there cannot be another infinite which will interfere with it; yet, the infinite universe has come from that infinite cause. But having seen that this infinite universe has come from the infinite cause, we should not conclude that there is a diminution of the substance of the cause to some extent when this infiniteness has come. If you take away something from something else, something is less in that something from which this has come; but here it is not the case. If the whole thing has come from the whole thing, the remainder is not something that is less than whole. It is also whole only. This stultifies all mathematical laws and logical principles. Mathematics and logic do not work in God's kingdom.

Here is an illustration from Sri Ramakrishna Parmahamsa. There were two devotees who saw Narada coming from Vaikuntha, the abode of Narayana. The devotees asked, “Great sage, what is Narayana doing there in Vaikuntha?”

Narada said, “He is passing a camel through the needle's eye.”

One devotee said, “Not possible! A camel cannot pass through the needle's eye. Even God cannot do that.”

The other devotee said, “Glory, glory, glory! Oh, what a glory! God can do everything. God can do everything!”

Sri Ramakrishna said, “The person who said that God cannot pass a camel through the needle's eye is thinking in terms of mathematics and logic, whereas the other one is a real devotee.”

God can convert a square into a circle, and a circle into a square. It is impossible for us. We will wonder how it is possible, but God is God, omnipotent. Omnipotence is one of the characteristics of God, which means the capacity to do anything. He can do, undo, and otherwise do things. These are the three qualities of God: doing, undoing, and otherwise doing. You cannot do that, so do not apply your logic there. Mathematics does not work and logic does not operate in the kingdom of God. It is super-logical and super-mathematical.

That is why we sometimes consider the reality of the universe as four-dimensional, and not as three-dimensional. Mathematics and logic are the manner in which the three-dimensional world operates. The four-dimensional realm, which is vaguely adumbrated by the physical theory of relativity of Einstein and others, goes beyond the concept of time and space. “Somebody came tomorrow and he will return yesterday.” We say this sentence does not make any sense, but it makes very much sense in the theory of relativity. A person has come tomorrow, and he will return yesterday. Do you see any meaning in that? It has a meaning in relativity. It is possible. Such a thing can happen.

The Mahabharata and the Ramayana took place centuries back. In some places they have not yet taken place. The vibrations that set up events are also the causes of the Ramayana and Mahabharata, and certain parts of the cosmos have not yet received these vibrations, and when the vibrations reach there, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata will take place there. These epics have taken place in some realm, and are yet to take place somewhere else. So events are not historical. According to the modern theory of physics also, events do not take place in space. Therefore, you cannot know where the Mahabharata or the Ramayana took place, where Christ was born, and where Krishna was. You should not say 'was', 'is', 'will be'. All events take place in eternity, and therefore history does not ultimately apply to the nature of things.

Have you heard people saying that sometimes we see a star shining in the sky when it has ceased to exist? It is no more there. The star's light has taken so much time to reach us that by the time it has reached, it has ceased to exist. There is so much distance between the earth and the star, and yet we say the star is there. We are only seeing the vibration, the particles or the waves of light impinging upon the retina of our eyes, which makes us conclude that some object is there. The object has ceased to be there. Logic cannot be applied to the realm of God, so God can pass a camel through the needle's eye, and He can convert a square into a circle.

Now our problem is, how can we relate God to this world? In what way is He connected? Has God transformed Himself into this world? We found that there is no matter independent of God out of which He fashions this world, because if we posit a matter or substance independent of God, the infinitude of God will be marred. So there cannot be something really there outside God. And if He fashions the world out of nothing, He will be like a magician making things appear as if they are there, though really they are not there.

But some schools of thought, some religious beliefs felt that we cannot consider this world as a nullity or a zero. There are values, there is meaning, there is substance, there is attraction and repulsion, there is solidity. How can we conclude that the world is a nullity? So they feel that perhaps there is a transmutation of the very body of God into the substance of this world. This doctrine of God becoming the world by a self-transformation of His substance is called in the Sanskrit language Parinamavada. Parinama is actual transformation of a substance into something else, like milk becoming curd, yogurt. When milk becomes yogurt, the milk has ceased to be there. We cannot have milk after it has become yogurt; yogurt cannot become milk once again. It is dead, finished. Has God become the world in that way by self-transformation so that God does not exist any more, and we have only the yogurt of this world? This cannot be. Why are we aspiring for God-realisation when God does not exist and has already become yogurt? The aspiration for God-realisation shows that God has not ceased to exist. He has not become this world because if something becomes something else, it has to be dead completely. It has to cease. God cannot cease to be at any time. Eternity is the nature of God; infinity is the nature of God. Therefore, even if the whole world comes from God, He will not be in any way diminished, even by a bit. This is the reason why the transmutation theory, Parinamavada, cannot be applied to God.

The final thing these philosophers had to hinge upon was that God appears as the world, He does not become the world. Though gold appears as an ornament, the gold continues to be the same as it was even before it became the ornament. Gold does not become something else when it becomes an ornament or a necklace. When clay becomes a pot, we are seeing a pot, but actually the potness, so to say, is a shape taken by the clay. Can we separate the shape from the substance? When we touch a pot, are we touching clay or are we touching a pot? What are we touching? We may say we are touching a pot, but actually we are touching clay. Separate the clay from the pot, and let us see where is the pot. Actually, there is no such thing as the pot. It is clay that has assumed potness. Potness is a spatiotemporal condition. Space and time join together to create a peculiar condition called shape, and shape, independent of the substance which has taken that shape, cannot be there. This is an example of how there can be an appearance but substantial change need not be there. Clay appears as a pot; it has not become the pot. Ask the clay, “Have you become the pot?” It will say, “Nothing has happened to me. I am the way same as I was.” Only the perceiver of the pot says there is a pot, but the clay itself may not be aware that it has become the pot.

We see the world. Really it may not be there. This is called Vivartavada, the apparent theory of creation, like a snake appearing as a rope in twilight, in indistinct perception. Actually there is a snake; we can see it and jump over it in fright. We will perspire at that time. The perspiration and the jumping are actual occurrences, but the cause thereof is zero; the snake is not there. A non-existent cause can sometimes create a real, visible effect. The snake is non-existent in the rope. Though it is non-existent really, it has caused some real effect because we are jumping over it with perspiration, fright, agitation etc.

Such is the vivarta or apparent relationship that they assume is existing between the supreme cause, which is God, and this universe. Otherwise, there is no way of explaining the relation between God and this world. It is not parinama, or transformation or transmutation, it is not actually a fashioning of the substance which is independent of God, and it is not a zero or a nullity. It is just as it was.

Gradually we have moved from the concept of the heaven of the gods as an abode of multiple existences of causes behind effects into groups of gods, into a one God – not merely a one God in the sense of a transcendent existence outside the world, extra-cosmic, but as something which is universally present. Universality is the nature of God. God is the nature of universality, and vice versa, universality is the nature of God. What we call the universal is the name of God. We have, therefore, to define the existence of God in clear principles of universality. When the universal is present in the particular, the particular assumes a reality. The reality of things in the world is in exact proportion to the extent of universality present in the particulars. If we remove all the universals, we will find no particulars existing.

Unfortunately for us, the universals are not visible things. They are invisible to the physical eye. Only the particulars are seen by us. The eyes can see only externality; therefore, universals, which are not outside the particulars but are immanent, cannot be visible to the eyes. Even the lowest universal is incapable of physical perception. We have to learn the art of thinking in terms of universals in order that we may become really religious or philosophical. The universal is a concept which has to be explained very carefully, not as some abstract imagination drawn out of or extracted from particulars, but as something that is prior to the existence of parts.

There are certain schools of thought, especially in the West, which go by the name of nominalism, which hold that the universal is posterior to the particular, not prior to the particular. Horseness is present in all horses. Now, horseness is a universal that can be said to be present in all particulars called horses. Which came first: horseness or horse? Some say unless there is such a thing called horseness, there cannot be a horse. Horseness has to be there, into whose mould the substance of the horse has to be cast so that a horse may be manufactured. But others say it is not like that. There cannot be horseness unless there is horse. That is to say, they consider horseness as a quality and horse as a substance. Can you have a quality without a substance? The quality has to inhere in the substance, and so the nominalists think that the particulars are the real essences, of which the generalities or universals are only abstractions.

But others like Plato and Aristotle in the West, for instance, and Vedanta philosophy in the East, have proclaimed that universals are not extractions or abstractions taken out from existing particulars, but they exist prior to the particulars. The idea comes first, and the implementation of it comes afterwards. For instance, there is a thing called money. We cannot see money with our eyes. We see only a piece of paper or a piece of metal. Money is in the form of a metal piece called coins or a piece of paper called currency notes, or it can be in the form of a transferable commodity like rice, wheat, etc. Now, minus commodity, minus metal, minus the piece of paper, what is money? It is a concept of the power to purchase. The power to purchase is called money, which is only in the head of a man. It is working in the brain as a kind of idea. It does not exist as a solid object. This impersonal universal called purchase power has become the particulars in the form of a coin or a piece of paper called a note, or a commodity which is transacted in commerce. But the thing itself is not the money. The value attached to it is the money. It can lose its value due to devaluation. Today a currency note is worth a hundred dollars, but tomorrow it is worth nothing because it has been devalued to zero. So the value that we attach to a particular piece of paper is the money thereof, and the substance that we are touching is not the money. Thus, the particular is not the real; the universal is the real.

Or to take another instance, there is the concept of administration through a government. We cannot see the government with our eyes. If we travel from one part of the country to another part, we will see shops and marketplaces with people running about here and there, vehicles, and people sitting on chairs and tables; we will not see the government anywhere. Ask any person, “Are you the government?” He will say, “No, I am a servant of the government.” If every person, even in the best of positions, considers himself as a government servant, whose servant is he? It is an abstract concept, a value that is attached to the total which coheres in each individual, which keeps the nation intact as an ideology. The government is an idea; the national spirit is a thought, a concept which is implemented in the form of individuals operating as officials – police officials, administrators, ministers, commissioners, etc.

Physical objects are not the values of the world. The values are implanted upon the physical objects by certain conceptualisations which are the generals behind the particulars. I am not going into details of this subject, which is very deep. You have to read the Republic of Plato or the Shankara Bhashya of the Brahmasutra, etc. I am only giving an indication as to how the universal comes first and the particular comes afterwards. The highest universal is God-consciousness, and therefore God comes first and the world comes afterwards. God-consciousness is not an effect from the physical objects of the universe. This also rules out the doctrine of behaviourist psychology, which says that consciousness is an actuation of matter. It is something like saying God is extracted from the physical world or the universal is extracted from the particular. It is not so. The physical cells of the body, the brain cells, as it were, do not manufacture consciousness. In the same way, particular things in the world do not create values. The values are independent and prior to the particulars. Otherwise, you can extract God from all material things in the world. So behaviourist psychology – which is material psychology, holding that consciousness exudes from matter – is untenable.

What is the conclusion, then? Universals come first, particulars come afterwards. “God first, the world next, yourself last” is the sum and substance of Swami Sivananda Maharaj's philosophy. If you know what these terms actually mean, you have understood the whole of philosophy, religion and the practice of yoga. God first, world next, yourself last. When you assess anything, homage to God should come first. First of all you pay homage to God, then you consider the welfare of the world, then your welfare comes as the last. If you consider yourself first, it means the effect comes first and the cause comes afterwards. Because God created the world and you are a part of the world, you are the third element in the process of creation, so do not put the cart before the horse. Otherwise, there will be topsy-turvy thinking. The universal has to be taken into consideration first in your prayers, in your meditations, and also in your daily dealings with people. The universal element in things must be taken into consideration first even in the marketplace, even in the vegetable shop, even in the railway station. You have to see that the universal is taken into consideration first as the element of judgment, and then take into consideration the lesser elements, the lesser universals, which are the relationship between you and the person concerned, and lastly, you as the independent person. But mostly, selfishness comes first: “I am first, and God may be or may not be there. Let the world go to the dogs.”

Swami Sivanandaji Maharaj was a very humorous person. He would tell a story and laugh. It is said that in some places there are three kinds of tea. If a rich man sees some friend coming and he wants to entertain that person with tea, he will say, “Give him the tea which I take.” But if he is not so very intimate, he will say, “Give the tea that I give to my father.” And if he is not important he will say, “Give ordinary chai. That is the chai I give to the world.” The worst thing is that which he gives to the world, a better one is that which he gives to his father, and the best is what he takes. So he will have three kinds of tea. You should not consider God as ordinary. He is not even better. He is the best. God is your very self. As God is your very self, how will you give Him third-class tea? You must give Him not even your father's tea, but your own tea. God is the best. So Swami Sivanandaji Maharaj said when you give in charity, do not give a torn currency note or old coins which will not work. Such charity is of no use. You are irritating God.

The universality of God, which is the subject of our discussion now, also implies the Selfhood of God. Because of the all-pervading nature of God, the infinitude of God, the universality of God, it follows that your existence is included in the universality of God. Therefore, my dear friend, you cannot exist outside God. Then you cannot deal with yourself in a manner contrary to the way in which you deal with God, and you cannot deal with anybody else in the world in a manner that is contrary to the selfhood of God. The world is a kingdom of ends; the world is not a kingdom of means. Neither the world, nor other people, nor yourself can be used as a commercial commodity, as a means to the exploitation of any particular end. Everybody is an end in themselves; nobody is a means to somebody else. Everybody loves himself or herself as dearly as an ant loves itself, or anybody loves itself. The tendency to survive, the love of existence, which is the selfhood thereof, is ingrained in each particle of matter. Even an atom loves itself. It will wriggle out by writhing this way or that way in order to maintain its atomhood. One atom cannot become another atom. This is the nature of the Self which tries to maintain itself as an independent end, and not as a means. So you cannot convert any person into a slave. There is no such thing as slaves in the world. Everybody is an end in himself. To convert, to exploit, to utilise or to arrogate is to be untrue to the Godhood that is present in you, in the Selfhood of people, in the universality that pervades all things, which is the ultimate meaning of the quest for religious consciousness.