Inconceivable Distinction and Non-distinction

Philosophical thought regarding the relation between God-dess and humans, God-dess “and the world of finite experience, the noumena and the phenomena, is directed along two main lines. Some, emphasizing the essential distinction between the infinite and the finite, accept the absolute transcendence of the one over the other, while others, emphasizing the identity between them regard” God-dess “as immanent in the human spirit and the phenomenal world.” (150)

Both lines of thought have their strengths and weaknesses. Both are needed for an adequate full explanation of the situation. By the inconceivable power of God-dess, “the concepts of identity and difference are transcended and reconciled in a higher synthesis. Transcendence and immanence are made the associated aspects of an abiding unity in” God-dess. (152) This is a form of panentheism.

The immanent aspect of God-dess is called Cosmic Consciousness. Simultaneously, God-dess with full splendor of infinite perfection, infinite potencies and infinite attributes transcends all finite things. Cosmic Consciousness “is the immanent regulator and observer of the actions of the finite souls, and the unifier of all existing things.” (152) God-dess is the blissful, personal absolute above and beyond the world of the senses. God-dess pervades the universe in a hidden form in which all beings exist. God-dess supports all, yet exists beyond all as the source of everything.

Due to God-dess’ inconceivable power, nothing is impossible. God-dess can “be both different from the world and identical with it, to create the world out of” him-herself “and remain out of it. This cannot be explained by reasoning.” (153) It can be realized by logical implication, however. “Simultaneous existence of identity and difference is…inconceivable, because it is contradictory.” (153) “The view relating to absolute identity is as illogical as the one relating to absolute difference.” (154)

We may explain that identity and difference are involved, but not exactly how the two are reconciled. That is inconceivable. Inconceivable identity and difference applies not only to God-dess and his-her energies, but also to material objects and their energies.

God-dess appears in many forms but is one. God-dess’ sport, name and form are at once different and non-different. Even the different parts of God-dess’ “body are different yet non-different, for each part can perform the functions of the other parts and of the whole. The part is, thus, actually identical with the whole, though still a part, and as such different from the whole.” (155)

God-dess’ inconceivable form “cannot be conceived because it is infinite and immeasurable.” The Vedic scriptures describe God-dess “as ‘the greatest of the great’ and ‘the smallest of the small,’ as ‘one who moves and yet moves not,’ as ‘one who is far as well as near, immanent as well as transcendent,’ and as one who does not have the mind or sense organs like ours and yet performs all the functions of these.” (156) We cannot comprehend these descriptions of God-dess’ inconceivable form. God-dess remains a paradox.

Inconceivable “signifies the marriage of the opposite concepts of ‘difference’ and ‘non-difference’ leading to a higher and fuller unity.” (157) Only God-dess’ inconceivable potency can reconcile transcendence with immanence and maintain God-dess’ purity in relation to the phenomenal world. Inconceivability reconciles real difference with real identity. This pertains to God-dess, the living entities and nature, as well as to all energies and their possessor.


Comments are closed.