Two undeniable statements can be drawn from the Godel model
and Ramanuja’s inference –
that rational thought can never penetrate to the Final Ultimate Truth * (Godel)
and that
finites can never prove the Infinite (Ramanuja) (from the previous post)
A question comes here –
how then can we say that God exists,
when his existence can not be proved?
Is this not what the people with high IQ have been saying?
To answer these questions,
we take inputs which are there in these questions themselves.
The inputs are in the form of inferences.
Inference -1 :- If IQ or intelligence does not see or prove or perceive God,
then know that it is inadequate – it (Intelligence ) is finite.
Inference -2 :-This also implies that, that which is not perceived by finite intelligence
must be Infinite!! (that is God)
Inference -3:- This scenario necessitates a search for other tools to know
whether they can be employed to detect or prove or disprove God.
Inference -4:- The irony is that there is no proof needed to establish one that exists.
Its existence itself is a proof.
Since God’s existence is perceived by many from time immemorial,
perhaps right form the time man came into existence, (manushya means one who thinks)
the burden of disproving Him is heavy.
Since He can not be disproved ( Godel’s model implies that),
we have to see how He can be proved!
To do this we have to think from a different angle.
To prove anything, there are some basic requirements,
such as perception and cognition.
When can we perceive something?
When it is in the same dimension or frequency level like ours.
If we say that we can not perceive God,
it means that we are not in the same level of frequency of God.
Then what is the level of frequency of God?
To know this, we have to look at the descriptions given about God.
This is known as testimony or Sabda or sruti or pramana texts.
(Knowing the limitations of our intelligence,
Hindu Thought has devised a methodology in the search to know about God.
There are 9 methods, but 6 have been accepted / used
in many a philosophical inquiry of scriptures.
They are
(1) Perception (direct & indirect)or prathyaksha
(2) Inference (anumana)
(3) Analogy or comparison (upamana)
(4) Testimony (sruti texts)
(5) Circumstantial presumption (arthapatti) and
(6) Negative proof of non-cognition or non apprehension (anupalabdhi)
An example for the 6th one – anupalabdhi is the non- apprehension of presence of stars
in the sky in the day time which does not mean that
there are no stars in the sky in the day time.)
To know the nature / frequency level of God,
we have to depend on Testimony - by the Vedic texts.
The texts describe the nature or frequency of
Brahman, the Ultimate God.
“Him who is of sun-like colour beyond darkness “ (Sve Upa- 3-8)
He is beyond darkness.
This means Tamas or Tamasa guna is absent in Him.
“Him who abides beyond Rajas” (Sama veda 17-1-4-2)
This means Rajasa guna is also absent in Him.
“Within the heart, there is a person consisting of mind, immortal and golden”
(Tai Upa
“ all mortal creatures have come from this self- luminous person” (yajur- 32-2)
“ Like a raiment of golden colour” (Br Upa
The golden, the self- luminous nature, the immortal one –
all these show that
this is about Sattva guna.
That He is Suddha sattva is also told in Bhagavd Gita.
All that is perfect, immortal, Infinite and True
are about Sattvic nature in full bloom.
If God is all about sattva, what can perceive that form?
Only another sattva can perceive this sattva!
And Intelligence is not sattva.
Intelligence is a faculty – not a guna – attitude.
That is why Intelligence can not perceive God!
But Intelligence in a sattvic mind can experience wonders which are about God.
This is here the Indian scientists scored higher than the western scientists.
This is not to say that western scientists utterly lack sattvic tendencies.
But there are tendencies that are of finite nature
which can not or may not help in perceiving the Absolute Sattvic.
These tendencies are termed as Yoga maya, by Gitacharyan.
“concealed by yoga maya, I am not perceived by all” (7-25 – BG)
But He is born out of his “Atma-maya” (4-6 BG)
The Atma maya reveals Him, but yoga-maya conceals Him.
How?
Maya (as per lexicon of Yaska) means wisdom, knowledge.
He is Knowledge of Gyana (satyam, gyanam, anatham Brahma is the Sruti vachan)
And He can be known by Gyana or Knowledge!
But that Gyana can not be perceived by Intelligence which is a faculty.
So it is not about whether you are intelligent or not.
It is about what ‘knowledge’ you got through that Intelligence.
When intelligence is used to know finite substances,
you may become successful as a scientist.
When that intelligence is used to ‘know’ Infinite Him,
then you get to know Atma- gyana – the knowledge of God.
Why Intelligence is found wanting in knowing God?
It is because it is one of the many things that have sprung matter – prakruthi,
whereas Gyana is about His attitude - the sattva guna.
Though sattva is also one of 3 gunas which have sprung from Prakruthi,
it is the only Guna that God is identified with
or personifies as.
So a person with sattva guna will perceive Him
and will become Him when he reaches the level
of Only Sattva or Suddha sattva.
Now let us look at those things that lack a shred to know about God.
They are (explained in BG 13-5&6)
the 5 elements,
aham kara,
buddhi,
10 indriyas,
manas,
5 senses.
Added to these are the rajasic and tamasic iccha (desire)
Dwesha (hatred)
Sukham( pleasure)
Dhukkham (pain)
When these things are there, sattva can not be perceived.
When sattva is not connected to Buddhi and manas,
the Suddha sattwa can not be perceived.
There are only two instances in Ithihasa of two persons
who acquired briefly the ingredients to ‘see’ God
inspite of limitations by prakruthi.
They are Arjuna and Sanjaya
The gift to see the form of God was given to Arjuna by the God Himslelf,
by ‘dadaami divyam chakshu:”
He gave the divine eye to Arjuna because without the divine eye,
no one can see His rupam.
The same divine eye was given to Sanjaya too by Vyasa,
just before the start of the war.
Vyasa initially offered to give this eye to Dhritharashtraa.
But he declined and instead preferred to hear the happenings in the battle field.
Vyasa then granted Sanjaya this divine eye
saying that he would be able see everything,
both hidden and open,
that which happens in the dark and in the light,
that which runs as thoughts in people’s interior and so on.
The description is same as what the Lord gave Arjuna as Divyam chakshu:
Vyasa further qualifies this boon by telling that
Sanjaya alone would emerge out of this war unhurt,
meaning that he would be there at every place in the
would follow every asthra shot,
listen to every word spoken,
but yet remain unaffected by it – or come out of all it unscathed.
But sanjaya was lucky in that
he not only saw the happenings in the battle field
and heard the Lord utter his Gita,
but also saw God in His Virat rupa.
Here a question comes what sattva Sanjaya had,
to be enabled to see Him?
What made sanjaya special to receive this gift?
This is the most intriguing part which every saadhaka wishes to know.
But to my present level of understanding,
it seems that a person need not do
great sacrifices, penance or
meditation to become the recipient of this gift.
As Upanishad says, “HE is seen by him whom He chooses.”
He, as an embodiment of sattvam, granted Sanjaya the Divine Vision
(through Vyasa),
because Sanjaya must have been of sattvam in an enhanced level.
But the choice is His
and as per BG it is about how you conduct yourself,
as a doer or an instrument.
Like the butcher from whom a sage learnt Athma gyaana (MB),
Sanjaya too was a selfless karmayogi, with equanimity.
There are two terms expressed in MB at different places.
They are puppets and instruments.
Elsewhere in MB it is said that the jivas are the puppets, controlled by Him.
But in BG. Bahgavan gives another choice, ‘nimiththam’ or instrument.
When one is a puppet, there is absolutely no control over one’s own actions by oneself.
But when one allows oneself to be used as an instrument by the Lord,
He takes charge and the jiva merely enjoys Lord’s actions as His Leela.
There is a qualitative difference in status between these two conditions.
Less awareness perpetuates one into being a puppet.
But awareness makes one to be used by Him, instead of being controlled by Him.
The latter one is what a karma yogi does.
The Lord prescribes this state only, as a way to liberation.
And it is in this way, Sanjaya qualifies for the divyam chakshu:
The awareness about Him and about the way He handles our affairs
can not come without we becoming sattvic.
So my inference is that Intelligence without sattvic nature
can not help one perceive or realize God!
* By William Denton on Godel's Theorm
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
Any system Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it. ………
Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...
How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.
The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally.
