There is a branch of the Eastern philosophy of Vedanta which spends
a fair amount of time and energy discussing what in India's ancient
language of Sanskrit is called "tat". Happily this
is one of the few Sanskrit words which can be translated accurately
into English. "Tat" is Sanskrit for the English word
The discussion usually resolves around the futility of naming that
which is the causeless cause of everything. Various names are offered,
and then each is tossed out as being inadequate. God, Goddess, Buddha,
Allah, Jahweh all bite the dust as names in this branch of cosmic
The core of the argument is simple. To name something is to deny
something else. For instance, if you say chair, you deny giraffe. If
you say dog, you deny cat. If you call something a chair, you
automatically deny it is a giraffe. If you call an animal a dog, you
automatically deny it is a cat. We can use the classic
Greek syllogism on this one if you like.
All names deny and exclude.
The word God is a name.
Therefore the word God denies and excludes.
This brings us to a logical contradiction which cannot be resolved.
The concept most often associated with the word God is one which
encompasses everything. Yet by being a name there is a denial of something.
However the concept of something so vast that it is unknowable is valid.
At the end of the day, these Eastern wise ones realized that they
would never find a name. So they resolved to use the impersonal pronouns,
"that" and "it" which by definition can mean almost
anything in Sanskrit (and English, too).
Thus they speak of "that" which transcends all there is,
for "it" is and "that" is all there is. The first
without a second. Get the lint out of your belly button. This is high-octane
naval gazing we're talking about here.
So what is "it" which is being spoken about? Try this one
out for size:
Scientists tell us our universe began some 14 billion years ago in the
Big Bang. They have studied it at great length and even can tell us what
was going on 1/100 of a second after the Big Bang took place. Fine.
Turn the clock back 2/100 of a second. This is just before the Big Bang.
Now answer the following question: What caused the Big Bang? When your
fingernails get tired from scratching your head, try "that"
or "it". Get the idea now?
There are some thing(s) so vast and unknowable that it becomes a futile
effort to try to wrap the conscious ego-based mind around them/it. In
the East they reduce this conundrum to an aphorism.
What you'll see in this website is that I take that aphorism and
freely bounce around with a variety of names, knowing full well none of
them really is accurate. But a website requires words, so words it
shall be. Like everyone else, I do the best I can.
But please don't take my use here of the words God, Cosmos, Universe,
and Source too literally. I have no use whatsoever for the corruption
various priesthoods throughout the world have grafted onto the word God,
for that corruption leaves me most uncomfortable with the word.
And while I realize there are individuals who are able to look past
that, frankly, I look forward to the day when humanity has the level of
spiritual evolution to realize that priesthoods are irrelevant because
people can find their spiritual path on their own. Priesthoods will then
shrivel into a footnote of history, which is probably the best place
for them. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Moving on to the words: Cosmos, Universe, and Source. These words
are so limiting because they do not begin to cover the territory
(if territory be the correct word) "it" covers.
Take your own journey and you'll see for yourself.
It's more fun than Club Med.