"BEGINNING OF UNIVERSE"
In order to really understand a certain argument, especially a logical one with subtlety, it is necessary to strictly adhere to the meanings of words that were agreed upon and the sense in which a combination of words are used will have to be understood according to the context. A person who is not ready to do this due to his 'egoistic' position or for any other reason will fail to grasp Hindu philosophy. Hindu philosophy is subtle, profound and ruthlessly logical. Pride has no place there.
Example : "All that glitters is not gold"
We all know that this statement is not about "gold" or "glittering", yet the meaning is very clear to almost all of us. Understanding of the real meaning of this sentence greatly depends on one's experience. Similarly, in Indian philosophy, a lot of self reflecting thoughts, attitude and a basic reflective approach are required as one's ego has a powerful blocking power when it comes to understanding of subtle reality.
*****************************************************************
We all feel, think and believe that we exist in this Universe and therefore we must be a part of it. By 'universe' what we mean, generally, is all that is there. It appears that this is a reasonable position. But alas, on closer scrutiny we will clearly see that things are not that simple and unless we are very cautious/alert we have already fallen into a trap, by 'trap' what I mean is a false assumption. Once an assumption is false at the very beginning of an argument, it is unlikely that it can come out of this falsity, even if the rest of the argument is flawless.
In fact, universe cannot include the 'knower' of the 'universe'. This is so because if it did, then it would never be possible to 'know'. In order to experience something, there has to be three things in place. Object, subject and the relationship between them (experience). A little thought reveals that this is so in any situation at all times. So when we say 'the universe' what we mean can only be the universe as known/imagined by us. It is impossible to include the subjective aspect of a human being in it as it is this aspect which conceives the objective universe. You can never say that the subject is a part of the object, because then 'object' loses its meaning and so will the 'subject'. So when one says 'this universe' , it is understood without special mention that it is the universe as conceived by the 'subject'. This understanding is most fundamental in Hindu philosophy without which one will not be able to appreciate its stand point.
Similarly, when we say the "beginning" of something, we already assume the existence of something else 'before' the 'beginning' that we are referring to. For example, when we say 'the road begins here', it is implied in the sentence that 'before' this "beginning" that road was not there, instead something else is. Even if it is nothingness, it is also 'something' vis-�-vis 'the road' because even 'nothingness' takes a definite meaning only in relationship with 'somethingness' � in this case 'the road'. Therefore even the term 'nothingness' is a relative term and is dependent on 'somethingness' for its existence.
It is simply from this understanding that we can say when someone says "the beginning of the universe" he implies the existence of something other than the universe before it was! Without this other it is impossible to begin anything! Another interesting point is who is the 'knower'? Was he there before ? If he was, then he existed as pure 'subject', but we know that this is impossible because subject is there only when object is also there, for both to take their respective meanings. Okay, then if one says the 'subject' was not there before the existence of the universe, then who could have possibly known it ? � beware ! be cautious ! �. The word 'who' takes its relevance not from a stand-point that someone in a physical form should have been existing, but because a 'subject' alone can conceive what a universe or for that matter anything! If one says that he (subject) needs to be in existence only now and not then (before the beginning of the universe), what does he mean by 'then'?
So the conclusion here is that the beginning of a world or a universe is indeterminate (anirvachaneeya) not because we cannot determine but because there is nothing to determine or a better way to put it is, is that we are trying to find the 'truthfulness' of a 'lie'.
"Beginnings" and "Ends" are not possible in any fundamental manner as anything 'fundamental' cannot be based on something transitory!
To put it concisely, the above explanation lays a choice in front of the scientific thinking. Whatever the
choice would be, it will be either an acknowledgement in a limitation for the scientific thinking or a recognition in a reality beyond the scientific realm. The acknowledgement in a limitation on the scientific thinking will be there if the choice is not to ask about the beginning of universe. A recognition in a further reality beyond the scientific realm will be there if the choice is to ask about the beginning of universe. In any case, it is a major blow on the very basic belief underling the scientific search which is actually a twofold belief.
1. The whole universe, what it contains and its operation is based only on deducible, mechanistic principals.
2. We as intelligent beings are able by using our senses and rationality to find perfectly all the answers.
