What is an atom? Take a bar of gold and cut it in to pieces. Take one of the pieces and pulverize it in to powder form. Take a small spec of it and cut it into still smaller pieces. If you go on dividing it, what you finally get is not gold. You get neutron, proton and a few electrons etc.. some amount of energy is also released in the process.

Take a grain of sand and go on dividing it. What do you get in the end? You get protons, neutron and electrons and some energy.

Take oxygen and divide it. What do you get in the end?
Thus, any substance, when continuously divided will yield electrons, protons, neutrons, and some form of energy. If all substances contain the same basic components, how to recognize the different substances?

That minimum size of a substance – gold, sand or oxygen - in which the nature of that substance is intact, is referred to as the atom of that substance. Shall we accept this definition? According to this, atom of a given substance is its smallest form. The substance will retain its nature only when it is equal to or bigger than this size. If it is further divided, it will lose its form and nature and what remains is basic components such as electron, proton, neutron etc.
The above description is the truth established by modern science. However, there is room for a question here.

You were given 100 bolts, 100 nuts, 100 washers, a few sheets of metal and other substances. You were told to make something useful. You made a car. If you are asked to make a train or a plane using the same nuts, bolts, washers etc., will you be able to do it? How then is it possible for different things such as gold, sand, Prana Vayu (oxygen) and even the Prana and Manas (mind) to come in to being by the use of the seemingly same basic components such as protons, neutrons and electrons?

Gold, sand, oxygen – all these are inert substances. The other substances such as Prana and Manas are endowed with Chaitanya – life. How is it possible that both these types of substances (those with Chaitanya and those without chaitanya) to be made of the same components namely electrons, protons, energy etc.?

According to modern science, light waves, heat, magnetic energy, electromagnetic energy – all these types of energies belong to Jada (inert) category because, a ray of light does not travel according to its wish. It can not say that I will give light to whom I like. It is the same with any form of energy. If the energy that is liberated when an atom is divided and the atom that is formed by the fusion of that energy with the atomic particles is also inert, from where then did the Chetana substance, namely 'Prana' come from?

Till very recently, it was thought that proton, electron etc., were merely particles in an atom. But scientists like Erwin Schrodinger Richard Finman have demonstrated that electrons behave independently like microorganisms. Sometimes they behave as solid objects and sometimes as waves. Therefore, they are called as probability waves.

If the basic parts of an atom were to behave as microorganisms, how can they be considered inert then? If dividing an atom releases enormous amount of energy, how is it that the substance (in its atom form) can remain stable?

Another question also crops up. If you are given clay, you can make only objects of clay such as clay plate, clay pot etc. If you are given gold, you can make only objects of gold such as golden chain, golden bangle etc. However, in our present discussion, more than 100 different substances (termed as elements) come in to being by using the same raw materials. Millions of substances are being made by using these 'elements'. How is this possible?

The scientists of today are thinking intensely on such questions. However, our ancient Rishis had thought about such questions and had arrived at convincing conclusions.

Modern science postulates that a substance can neither be newly created nor destroyed completely. In fact, the ancient Rishis had propounded this theory thousands of years ago. However, the way they have stated this fact may be different. They had said, "that which exists always exists; that which does not exist never exists." We can come across one such statement in the Bhagavad Gita also – 'Naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate satah'.
Life and consciousness are visible in the creation. It has been shown by scientists like Richard Finnman that even in the subatomic particles of an atom there is Chaitanya. There are particles endowed with Chaitanya even in the atoms which we consider as (Jada) inert. Therefore, it is obvious that fundamental principle that pervades the entire creation is nothing but Chaitanya. It therefore follows that our assumption that some objects in the creation are inert is merely an illusion. It is not a reality.

If Chaitanya were to pervade the entire creation, why is it that it should behave to be inert in some places and dynamic in other places? Our ancient Rishis have given a clear answer to this question. What they have said is, 'there is a regulatory dynamic energy (Niyaamaka Chaitanya Shakti) which is responsible for the atoms to get the atom-hood.'

Niyaamaka Chaitanya Shakti is too big a name. Therefore, they called that energy as 'Bhagavanta' (Almighty).

Where was the necessity for them to say 'Niyaamaka Chaitanya Shakti'? It needs some explanation. When all atoms are made up of similar basic atomic particles, there is some force that regulates them is a particular pattern and makes different substances such as gold, oxygen etc etc. Because of this function, that energy was called as Niyamaka Shakti (regulating energy). For any work to be done, there should be energy. In the present context, it is called as Niyamaka Shakti because it does the work of regulating. All forms of energy in the world appear to be non-independent and Jada. In order to point out that this Shakti does not belong to the Jada category, it has been qualified as Niyaamaka 'Chaitanya' Shakti. For the sake of convenience, a shorter name – 'Bhagavanta' was used to denote this energy. Bhagavanta means one who has limitless energies. This description may imply that energies and the one who possesses them are two different entities. Therefore, another term – 'Deva' was given. Deva means one who is self-luminous. Even this description may seem limited because it may indicate the 'light' energy only. Therefore, another term 'Atma' was used to indicate it. Atma means that which is all-pervading. As far as we know, Akasha is also all-pervading. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the term 'Paramatma' was used.

Thus, when the Rishis set out to give a simple name to Niyaamaka Chaitanya Shakti (regulatory dynamic energy), innumerable names came in to being. The Rishis never did anything without a purpose or a meaning. Giving names is no exception to this fact. Therefore, they took much care and pains while giving names to the Niyaamaka Chaitanya Shakti. However, they were not completely satisfied with any of those names because of they were up against a stupendous task of naming that energy which is the basis of all causes and results in this creation. All aspects of the characteristics of all objects in this creation are inherent in that fundamental principle. Therefore, if a name representing only some of the characteristics were given, it would exclude other innumerable characteristics. Therefore, no single name could satisfy them.
Why so much of a fuss? After all, a name is required for the convenience of identification. Why be adamant that all characteristics should be reflected by the name? Are there no names such as X-ray, Beta-ray etc.? Don't those names convey the meaning? Why not have some similarly simple names?

It is not as if our ancient Rishis did not think on these lines.
We now know about many types of waves. One of them has been named as X-ray. As soon as that name is uttered, our mind excludes every other type of rays and thinks about that particular ray. Even if we want to give such a simple name to the Niyaamaka Chaitanya Shakti, we may not succeed because there is nothing else in this creation which is similar to it. Also, the process of naming an object is dependent on the mind. The mind is dependent on the body. The body is dependent on the atoms. The atoms are dependent on the atomic particles, which in turn is dependent on the Niyaamaka Chaitanya Shakti. Therefore, the principle, which we want to call by a name, is at an unfathomable depth. This is another reason why giving it an appropriate name is becoming impossible.

There is another aspect also. If there is an object that is visible to the eyes, or perceivable through the ears, we give a name depending on its form. For example, if it is a form visible to the eyes, we may call it a black, white, red, etc. If it is a sound, we call it as Sa, Ri, Ga, Ma (notes having a definite pitch). If it is something that is comprehendible by the mind, we may call it as happiness or sorrow. We have understood that the Niyaamaka Chaitanya Shakti is beyond the senses and the mind. How then can we comprehend it? How can we name it?
It is now clear that in however many ways we look at it, it is not possible for the Chaitanya Shakti – which is present in the atoms and in atomic sub particles and causes different characteristics of that particular substance to manifest – to have a name or form. Still, if we have to think about that principle or if we want to discuss about it, or if we need to understand it, we have to keep some name. Therefore, some of our ancient Rishis called it as Paramatma. Some others called it Parabrahma. Some called it as Moola Shakti (primordial energy). Some called it Shiva, some Vishnu and some others called it as Allah, God etc. etc.. Whatever the name, those who gave the names were not entirely satisfied with those names. This is because, they were aware that none of these names were all-embracing.

Some people were able to comprehend when they were told a name and asked to contemplate. Some others did not have the capacity to do so. Out of compassion for such people, the Niyaamaka Shakti (the regulating energy) itself assumed various forms and showed those forms periodically to the Rishis.

The Almighty gave instructions to Abraham. Abraham was not able to see who was giving the instructions, but could only hear them. When Abraham implored the Almighty to reveal His form. "You can not see my face. However, I shall show you my back" said the Almighty and showed His back to Abraham. From this episode we can understand that it is not possible for the Indriyas (senses) to see the Almighty's face – i.e., His true form – and that one should recognize the Almighty through an assumed form. Not only that, we can also understand that it is the Almighty Himself who assumes a form. This is what the Bible preaches. Our ancient Rishis have made similar remarks in the Puranas.

Why does the Almighty assume different forms in different places and different times? Why can't He assume the same form always? To understand this, we must first understand as to why He assumed a form in the first place.

The Almighty assumed a form out of compassion for those who, despite their intense desire to understand Him, were unable to do so. What form should the formless Almighty assume? Should He stubbornly remain in His original form or should He assume a form that can be comprehended by the earnest seeker? Different people have different tastes. Therefore, the Almighty had to assume different forms such as Vishnu, Shiva, Devi etc. In reality, all forms are one. All names belong to the Almighty Himself.

Gradually people forgot this and started classifying themselves on the basis of the form they worshipped and the scriptures they followed. As this attitude became more and more prevalent in the society, there came a situation when people of one sect started hating people of another sect. Our societies are still suffering from such attitudes. The following Sookti is intended to pull out those beings who are drowned in such narrow thinking.

Kim tasya roopam kimu naama tasya
Yasyaanu madhyepi nivaasamasti
Pradesha kaalaanugataat vibhinnam
Ruchi prabhedaat kila manyate tat

How can we describe the form of the Almighty who dwells even in the core of an atom? What name shall we give Him? Depending upon the tastes (of people of different places and different eras) different names and forms are attributed to Him.

The first part of the Sookti raises the objection 'What form? What name?' (can be given to the Almighty). By raising this objection, it is indicating that one who has a form and a name is in fact not Paramatma at all. It gives further explanation in the next line – 'yasyaanu madhyepi nivaasamasti' – He dwells even in the core of the atom. Why is the word even (api) used here? It is to show that he dwells not only in the core of the atom, but outside the atom also. George Wald, a Noble prize winner who conducted extensive research in the field of biology and neurophysiology has demonstrated that Chaitanya is all pervading. He has also stated that Vedantic sciences of the east were instrumental in guiding his thinking style to realize this truth.
The word 'api' in the second line is also indicating that the regulating Chaitanya energy is all pervading. The third and fourth lines of the Sookti explain that it is because of the diversity of tastes of beings that this energy assumes different names and forms. In the fourth line, there is a very interesting word – 'manyate'. It means 'it is so assumed', 'it is so understood', 'it is so considered'. It means that the names and forms are being attributed to the energy. Name or form is merely our assumption and not a reality.

"Although being devoid of name and form, I am assuming names and forms for your convenience. Use these as landmarks and continue your journey towards me" is what the Almighty is telling us. We listen only to the first part and get stuck at that level itself (at the level of name and form). It is something like this – you want to go to Mr. Smith's house. Your friend tells you 'go in this road. On the way, you will see a park. Go straight beyond the park and you will reach Mr. Smith's place'. You start your journey. Indeed you come across the park your friend mentioned. You become attracted to the enchanting surroundings of the park. You sit there, forgetting that you have to continue your walk to reach Mr. Smith's house. If you get stuck in the park itself, how can you reach your destination?

This is exactly what is happening in today's world where people have become blind because they are not able to see beyond their faiths (religions). This Sookti is cautioning us against succumbing to such blindness. It is urging us to reach the nameless and formless Almighty Energy.

Sri Swamiji