Q10. Is Moksha the ultimate goal of life?
A10. All religious and spiritual philosophies will say - yes. They use different terms, like Salvation, Liberation, God Realization, Self Realization, Samadhi, etc. "I am the Wise, the Blessed, the Happy, the Liberated!"
I wonder if this is a selfish objective? If I get Moksha, what about the others? Gandhiji once said (referring to God) "I can not come to you alone, I have to take others with me." What would be more satisfying - having realized God and be in the state of ultimate bliss, or be born on the earth in the service of others, so that they get a chance to live a decent life, and even get to a point of thinking about Moksha?
To this mortal mind, the latter seems to be more real and appealing.
May be, Moksha is only a natural outcome of a more desirable objective. It is only a "fruit" of some actions, hence should be renounced (i.e. not worry about it)? Moksha for Moksha's sake is self-defeating and even illusory?
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Birthday Message to Friends and Family
Today, I would like to repeat the same message that I had conveyed 5 years ago on my 50th Birthday......
Amit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends and Family:
I was delighted to see you all at my 50th Birthday Party.
I am not writing this to thank you for showing up. I am sure you all did it with great pleasure. It has meant a lot to me/us that you did show up - not just for that day - but have been showing up for however long we have known each other. I am sure, that has been done with great pleasure too, and with unconditional affection and devotion as friends. I am truly grateful to have such a gift - of gifted friends and family - and am elated to share that gift with all of you.
I do want to reiterate what I felt at that time - that we are all blessed - with good friends, family, teachers, mentors....and a lot more. It has all been enriched by the land we were born in and the culture we have inherited. So, I am sure, we together will continue to enjoy and enrich that heritage, may it be music, dance, arts, literature, sports, philosophy, spirituality or umpteen other things that the environment around us has to offer. In fact, being born as a human and have the capacity to admire God's beauty seems like a gift enough.
Speaking of "God", I do not know anything about HIM, other than that it signifies everything that is "Good" around us. That is why HIS name is interwoven in most aspects of our culture, and has resulted in some magnificent creations through centuries. So, I am not shy about invoking HIS name.
I have thought hard as to what it means to be 50. Very frankly, I cannot come up with anything different from being 30 or 40. I have felt no change. So, for the rest of the younger gang, 50 is an insignificant milestone in a continuing journey - other than a good excuse for a party (may be, Medha just started a rumour that I am 50, in order to get us all together), and pausing for a moment to reflect upon your life and sharing the sentiments in a note like this with all those you care about.
I hope it was fun - not just the party - but the preparation. I also learned that you were all a significant and enthusiastic party to the crime. I wonder if I should be happy that I did not have to do any work - or should envy you all for missing out on the process. It was great to see the house filled with laughter. May that continue for all of us - and all others around us - for years and years to come.
I should not forget an important point - I have appointed myself as the Manager of Medha's patented plan for parties. Should you want to take advantage of that patent, you are kindly requested to contact this Manager's Office.
With great affection,
Amit
Amit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends and Family:
I was delighted to see you all at my 50th Birthday Party.
I am not writing this to thank you for showing up. I am sure you all did it with great pleasure. It has meant a lot to me/us that you did show up - not just for that day - but have been showing up for however long we have known each other. I am sure, that has been done with great pleasure too, and with unconditional affection and devotion as friends. I am truly grateful to have such a gift - of gifted friends and family - and am elated to share that gift with all of you.
I do want to reiterate what I felt at that time - that we are all blessed - with good friends, family, teachers, mentors....and a lot more. It has all been enriched by the land we were born in and the culture we have inherited. So, I am sure, we together will continue to enjoy and enrich that heritage, may it be music, dance, arts, literature, sports, philosophy, spirituality or umpteen other things that the environment around us has to offer. In fact, being born as a human and have the capacity to admire God's beauty seems like a gift enough.
Speaking of "God", I do not know anything about HIM, other than that it signifies everything that is "Good" around us. That is why HIS name is interwoven in most aspects of our culture, and has resulted in some magnificent creations through centuries. So, I am not shy about invoking HIS name.
I have thought hard as to what it means to be 50. Very frankly, I cannot come up with anything different from being 30 or 40. I have felt no change. So, for the rest of the younger gang, 50 is an insignificant milestone in a continuing journey - other than a good excuse for a party (may be, Medha just started a rumour that I am 50, in order to get us all together), and pausing for a moment to reflect upon your life and sharing the sentiments in a note like this with all those you care about.
I hope it was fun - not just the party - but the preparation. I also learned that you were all a significant and enthusiastic party to the crime. I wonder if I should be happy that I did not have to do any work - or should envy you all for missing out on the process. It was great to see the house filled with laughter. May that continue for all of us - and all others around us - for years and years to come.
I should not forget an important point - I have appointed myself as the Manager of Medha's patented plan for parties. Should you want to take advantage of that patent, you are kindly requested to contact this Manager's Office.
With great affection,
Amit
Sunday, November 29, 2009
9. Does God really exist?
Q9. Does God really exist? And if so, where is the proof?
A9. This is the age old question that many grapple with. Happier are the ones who already know the answer. For the rest of us, the inquiring mind is restless.
Let us begin with an extract of a speech by Gandhiji on this subject on October 17, 1931 at the Kingsley Hall in London:
"There is an indefinable mysterious power that pervades everything. I feel it, though I do not see it. It is this unseen power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses. It transcends the senses.
But it is possible to reason out the existence of God to a limited extent. Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules, or why, and how he rules. And yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules. In my tour last year in Mysore, I met many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they did not know who ruled Mysore. They simple said “some God ruled it”. If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler, I, who am infinitely lesser in respect to God than they to their ruler, need not be surprised if I do not realize the presence of God, the King of Kings.
Nevertheless I do feel as the poor villagers felt about Mysore, that there is orderliness in the universe. There is an unalterable law governing everything and every being that exists or lives. It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living beings. That law then which governs all life is God. Law and the lawgiver are one. I may not deny the law or the lawgiver because I know so little about it or Him, just as my denial or ignorance of the existence of an earthly power will avail me nothing. Even so, my denial of God and his law will not liberate me from its operation. Whereas, humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life’s journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.
I do dimly perceive that while everything around me is ever changing, ever dying, there is underlying all that change a living power that is changeless, that holds all together; that creates, dissolves, and recreates. That informing power of spirit is God. And since nothing else that I see merely through the senses can or will persist, he alone is.
And if this power is benevolent or malevolent, I see it as purely benevolent. For, I can see that in the midst of death, life persists; in the midst of untruth, truth persists; in the midst of darkness, light persists. Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light. He is love. He is the supreme good.
But, he is no God who merely satisfies the intellect, if he ever does. God to be God must rule the heart and transform it. He must express himself in every smallest act of his votary. This can only be done through a definite realization more real than the five senses can ever produce.
Sense perceptions can be, and often are, false and deceptive - however real they may appear to us. Where there is realization outside the senses, it is incredible. It is proved not by extreme extraneous evidence, but in the transformed conduct and character of those who have felt the real presence of God within. Such testimony is to be found in the experiences of an unbroken line of prophets and sages in all countries and climes. To reject this evidence is to deny one-self.
This realization is preceded by an immovable faith. He who would in his own person, test the fact of God’s presence can do so by a living faith. And since faith itself cannot be proved by extraneous evidence, the safest course is to believe in the moral government of the world and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law of truth and love. Exercise of faiths will be the safest where there is a clear determination summarily to reject all that is contrary to truth and love.
I confess, that I have no argument to convince through reason. Faith transcends reason. All that I can advise is not to attempt the impossible."(End of Gandhiji's speech)
Here are a few points to consider:
Point 1: The “Effect” is the “Proof”
The "effect" has become the basis of several known and proved scientific phenomena.
The Big Bang theory (though generally accepted) still does not pass rigorous scientific proof. Black Holes and Dark Energy (making up 96% of the Universe) are still believed to exist based on indirect proof only. That proof being: we perceive their effect, hence, they must exist. And their properties are conjectured based on the observed effects. All of this is acceptable to most scientists, even though skepticism does persist.
Take Electromagnetism, for example. We have not seen it, heard it, spoken to it, touched it, or smelled it. But, we have felt the effect. We know it exists. Same goes for Electricity. Their existence is fool-proof, because their observed effects are compelling!
Now, let us take the example of a wrist watch. No one will believe that its existence came into being accidentally. It is known that in order to make a wrist watch, someone should conceive, design and manufacture it. It is obvious that there is some intelligence behind it, without which, the watch cannot exist.
Similarly, let us look at the world and see how it operates. It has the known forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, etc.) that act in a predictable manner. It has the evolution of life from a small cell. How about the complexity of the human body, which is millions of times more complex than a wrist watch? And beyond that, the complexity of the entire universe and how it works. If a wrist watch required intelligence, could such complexity be possible without some intelligence? And if so, can that intelligence (or Energy, or Force) be named God?
Point 2: Observations and Experiences
Then there are the known experiences of an "unbroken line of prophets and sages". The Sages did not develop a line of reasoning. Consequently, they did not develop a theory, nor did they conjecture anything. They simply reported what they "experienced" or "observed”. It is a different matter if one thinks they were just making it up, or that they were under illusion.
But, what is known is that these experiences and observations are repeated by several of them over and over again (over hundreds of years) - in various forms - all saying the same thing. Some of which is proven by Science through material observations, and rest is not. So, it is not unreasonable to believe what is already proven by Science is to be accepted, and what is not proven yet - one has to be skeptical about.
But, in all this - there is clarity on their part about their "experience". They challenge us NOT to believe them - but to "live" them - "experience it ourselves". And that is the end of it. They are simply telling us "what is" - and prod us "to find out for ourselves".
Science may one day succeed in answering the question, and we hope it does - during our life time. Sages tell us there is also another way to find out - which they did - and reported what they found. They did not provide any reason - because they did not have to. Or, maybe they did not even know what the reasons could be. Thanks to Science that the thread of reasoning can be developed to understand the "why" of "what".
Point 3: Faith
For many, all of the above is compelling enough for God's existence. For purists, it is not. On the other hand, many do not need any evidence. "Faith" is good enough for them. For them, it is not a matter of the Mind; it is a matter of the Heart. Heart triumphs Mind. Heart rules the world much more than the Mind does. And matters of the Heart may defy evidence. Looking for evidence is only a game of the Mind – Heart is already beyond that. Those who want to play the game of Mind can certainly do so, and get tangled up in the trials and tribulations of the game; while those driven by the Heart have already reached the destination!
Point 4: The scientific journey has only just begun
A nagging question - Why can't Science provide evidence of God, if He does exist? Well, Science does not know a lot even about our own Universe, yet. But, it is progressing in its knowledge over time. We began acquiring knowledge when intelligence started (thousands of years ago). Centuries ago, nobody believed in a round earth (it was flat), or Sun being the center of the solar system (earth was), or that there are millions of galaxies and billions of stars. As mentioned earlier, the Big Bang theory (though generally accepted) still does not pass rigorous scientific proof. And our understanding of Black Holes and Dark Energy has only begun. Even though we have made significant progress in understanding the human body, our knowledge in that regard is still severely limited.
Given the fact that the life span of the Universe is at least billions of more years, how long before we know it all? On a "knowledge journey" of 1,000 miles, we have only moved a few inches. We are still almost at the starting gate. We have a long way to go. Is it any surprise that we have not seen the finish line yet? We still do not know the rest of the journey, let alone the destination. In other words, "scientific proof" may take billions of more years.
The whole world is debating what is observed on the surface of the ocean - because that is what is easily visible - without realizing what lies in its enormous depth. On the surface is what we observe as religion and science today - at this point in time (out of a life of several billion more years) - while much of the depth remains unexplored. May be, it is natural that we are prisoners of what we know today, and conclude that what we do not know today cannot be the truth.
Science does not know a lot about the Universe yet. There is yet a lot to know, and we have billions of years left to find out. What a relief!
Point 5: God transcends Senses
It has been argued that the Divine realm is beyond the material world – beyond sense perceptions – beyond the 5 senses, the mind, the intellect. Hence, God cannot be perceived or his existence proven through material means. In Chapter 11 of Gita, when Arjun asks Krishna to reveal His form, Krishna tells him that he cannot see Him with his senses. He grants him “Divine vision” – so he can see Him. Sense perceptions are limited. They can only perceive a few layers of reality – but not all. God is beyond sense perceptions.
Summary
There is no rigorous scientific proof of God's existence. His existence is only observed and experienced, according to the sages. If that does not make us believe in God, it would certainly give us a pause - something to think about - for sure. Not whether it is true or not, but - could it be true?
The believers will say: "God is not to be believed, God is to be understood." And they would say to the skeptical mind: "Give it the benefit of the doubt, pending inquiry".
But, what truly matters is not whether we believe in God, but what we do with that knowledge, or lack there-of.
All of the Vedic philosophy culminates into experiencing and practicing (living) the truths - because that is the only thing of value. Making the mind "believe or not" is only a game, is stimulating and entertaining - sounds good - but, has no value. As a result, our focus should be on living a good life (independent of our philosophical/spiritual/religious beliefs). We don't have to "believe". We only have to "live". That is why when some say they want to do "good" - that is sufficient. And no more is required of life.
A9. This is the age old question that many grapple with. Happier are the ones who already know the answer. For the rest of us, the inquiring mind is restless.
Let us begin with an extract of a speech by Gandhiji on this subject on October 17, 1931 at the Kingsley Hall in London:
"There is an indefinable mysterious power that pervades everything. I feel it, though I do not see it. It is this unseen power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses. It transcends the senses.
But it is possible to reason out the existence of God to a limited extent. Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules, or why, and how he rules. And yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules. In my tour last year in Mysore, I met many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they did not know who ruled Mysore. They simple said “some God ruled it”. If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler, I, who am infinitely lesser in respect to God than they to their ruler, need not be surprised if I do not realize the presence of God, the King of Kings.
Nevertheless I do feel as the poor villagers felt about Mysore, that there is orderliness in the universe. There is an unalterable law governing everything and every being that exists or lives. It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living beings. That law then which governs all life is God. Law and the lawgiver are one. I may not deny the law or the lawgiver because I know so little about it or Him, just as my denial or ignorance of the existence of an earthly power will avail me nothing. Even so, my denial of God and his law will not liberate me from its operation. Whereas, humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life’s journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.
I do dimly perceive that while everything around me is ever changing, ever dying, there is underlying all that change a living power that is changeless, that holds all together; that creates, dissolves, and recreates. That informing power of spirit is God. And since nothing else that I see merely through the senses can or will persist, he alone is.
And if this power is benevolent or malevolent, I see it as purely benevolent. For, I can see that in the midst of death, life persists; in the midst of untruth, truth persists; in the midst of darkness, light persists. Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light. He is love. He is the supreme good.
But, he is no God who merely satisfies the intellect, if he ever does. God to be God must rule the heart and transform it. He must express himself in every smallest act of his votary. This can only be done through a definite realization more real than the five senses can ever produce.
Sense perceptions can be, and often are, false and deceptive - however real they may appear to us. Where there is realization outside the senses, it is incredible. It is proved not by extreme extraneous evidence, but in the transformed conduct and character of those who have felt the real presence of God within. Such testimony is to be found in the experiences of an unbroken line of prophets and sages in all countries and climes. To reject this evidence is to deny one-self.
This realization is preceded by an immovable faith. He who would in his own person, test the fact of God’s presence can do so by a living faith. And since faith itself cannot be proved by extraneous evidence, the safest course is to believe in the moral government of the world and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law of truth and love. Exercise of faiths will be the safest where there is a clear determination summarily to reject all that is contrary to truth and love.
I confess, that I have no argument to convince through reason. Faith transcends reason. All that I can advise is not to attempt the impossible."(End of Gandhiji's speech)
Here are a few points to consider:
Point 1: The “Effect” is the “Proof”
The "effect" has become the basis of several known and proved scientific phenomena.
The Big Bang theory (though generally accepted) still does not pass rigorous scientific proof. Black Holes and Dark Energy (making up 96% of the Universe) are still believed to exist based on indirect proof only. That proof being: we perceive their effect, hence, they must exist. And their properties are conjectured based on the observed effects. All of this is acceptable to most scientists, even though skepticism does persist.
Take Electromagnetism, for example. We have not seen it, heard it, spoken to it, touched it, or smelled it. But, we have felt the effect. We know it exists. Same goes for Electricity. Their existence is fool-proof, because their observed effects are compelling!
Now, let us take the example of a wrist watch. No one will believe that its existence came into being accidentally. It is known that in order to make a wrist watch, someone should conceive, design and manufacture it. It is obvious that there is some intelligence behind it, without which, the watch cannot exist.
Similarly, let us look at the world and see how it operates. It has the known forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, etc.) that act in a predictable manner. It has the evolution of life from a small cell. How about the complexity of the human body, which is millions of times more complex than a wrist watch? And beyond that, the complexity of the entire universe and how it works. If a wrist watch required intelligence, could such complexity be possible without some intelligence? And if so, can that intelligence (or Energy, or Force) be named God?
Point 2: Observations and Experiences
Then there are the known experiences of an "unbroken line of prophets and sages". The Sages did not develop a line of reasoning. Consequently, they did not develop a theory, nor did they conjecture anything. They simply reported what they "experienced" or "observed”. It is a different matter if one thinks they were just making it up, or that they were under illusion.
But, what is known is that these experiences and observations are repeated by several of them over and over again (over hundreds of years) - in various forms - all saying the same thing. Some of which is proven by Science through material observations, and rest is not. So, it is not unreasonable to believe what is already proven by Science is to be accepted, and what is not proven yet - one has to be skeptical about.
But, in all this - there is clarity on their part about their "experience". They challenge us NOT to believe them - but to "live" them - "experience it ourselves". And that is the end of it. They are simply telling us "what is" - and prod us "to find out for ourselves".
Science may one day succeed in answering the question, and we hope it does - during our life time. Sages tell us there is also another way to find out - which they did - and reported what they found. They did not provide any reason - because they did not have to. Or, maybe they did not even know what the reasons could be. Thanks to Science that the thread of reasoning can be developed to understand the "why" of "what".
Point 3: Faith
For many, all of the above is compelling enough for God's existence. For purists, it is not. On the other hand, many do not need any evidence. "Faith" is good enough for them. For them, it is not a matter of the Mind; it is a matter of the Heart. Heart triumphs Mind. Heart rules the world much more than the Mind does. And matters of the Heart may defy evidence. Looking for evidence is only a game of the Mind – Heart is already beyond that. Those who want to play the game of Mind can certainly do so, and get tangled up in the trials and tribulations of the game; while those driven by the Heart have already reached the destination!
Point 4: The scientific journey has only just begun
A nagging question - Why can't Science provide evidence of God, if He does exist? Well, Science does not know a lot even about our own Universe, yet. But, it is progressing in its knowledge over time. We began acquiring knowledge when intelligence started (thousands of years ago). Centuries ago, nobody believed in a round earth (it was flat), or Sun being the center of the solar system (earth was), or that there are millions of galaxies and billions of stars. As mentioned earlier, the Big Bang theory (though generally accepted) still does not pass rigorous scientific proof. And our understanding of Black Holes and Dark Energy has only begun. Even though we have made significant progress in understanding the human body, our knowledge in that regard is still severely limited.
Given the fact that the life span of the Universe is at least billions of more years, how long before we know it all? On a "knowledge journey" of 1,000 miles, we have only moved a few inches. We are still almost at the starting gate. We have a long way to go. Is it any surprise that we have not seen the finish line yet? We still do not know the rest of the journey, let alone the destination. In other words, "scientific proof" may take billions of more years.
The whole world is debating what is observed on the surface of the ocean - because that is what is easily visible - without realizing what lies in its enormous depth. On the surface is what we observe as religion and science today - at this point in time (out of a life of several billion more years) - while much of the depth remains unexplored. May be, it is natural that we are prisoners of what we know today, and conclude that what we do not know today cannot be the truth.
Science does not know a lot about the Universe yet. There is yet a lot to know, and we have billions of years left to find out. What a relief!
Point 5: God transcends Senses
It has been argued that the Divine realm is beyond the material world – beyond sense perceptions – beyond the 5 senses, the mind, the intellect. Hence, God cannot be perceived or his existence proven through material means. In Chapter 11 of Gita, when Arjun asks Krishna to reveal His form, Krishna tells him that he cannot see Him with his senses. He grants him “Divine vision” – so he can see Him. Sense perceptions are limited. They can only perceive a few layers of reality – but not all. God is beyond sense perceptions.
Summary
There is no rigorous scientific proof of God's existence. His existence is only observed and experienced, according to the sages. If that does not make us believe in God, it would certainly give us a pause - something to think about - for sure. Not whether it is true or not, but - could it be true?
The believers will say: "God is not to be believed, God is to be understood." And they would say to the skeptical mind: "Give it the benefit of the doubt, pending inquiry".
But, what truly matters is not whether we believe in God, but what we do with that knowledge, or lack there-of.
All of the Vedic philosophy culminates into experiencing and practicing (living) the truths - because that is the only thing of value. Making the mind "believe or not" is only a game, is stimulating and entertaining - sounds good - but, has no value. As a result, our focus should be on living a good life (independent of our philosophical/spiritual/religious beliefs). We don't have to "believe". We only have to "live". That is why when some say they want to do "good" - that is sufficient. And no more is required of life.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
8. How Many Gods and Forms?
Q8. Why are there so many Gods in Hinduism? And what is the real form of God?
A8. Like all Monotheistic religions there is only one God in Hinduism. But, Hinduism does not stop there. According to Vedic scriptures, upon which Hinduism is based, there is not only one God, but God is the only One - and there is no second. In other words, there exists nothing else, but God. Hence, God exists in everything.
And that God (Brahman) is Formless, without attributes. He is without beginning or end, is infinite, and is without any characteristic. Now, that is a problem for the human mind. How can one comprehend something that does not have a form or no characteristics? So, in order for the human mind to comprehend God, form had to be given.
But, the question is which form? By definition, God exists in everything that has a form! So, it is then obvious that God can be worshipped in ANY form. Hence, Hindus conceived several forms of God - depending on which characteristic of God one wants to predominate in one's worship. Hence, Brahama became the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, Mahesh the Destroyer, Krishna the Loving Form, Saraswati the Goddess of Knowledge, Laxmi the Goddess of Wealth, etc. By extension, Jesus Chris or Allah or any God by any name should be (and are) equally acceptable, because all of them refer to the same God.
In all this, formless God still remains, but comes alive in a form - or, several forms for the benefit of the human mind. This has been confused by many (including Hindus) as having several Gods. Max Muller tried to explain it by coining the term "Henotheism" - which implies worshipping one God, but accepting other deities. This, though well intentioned, is a lame attempt at explaining the real truth - i.e. God is the only One, and that is the end of it. No question about accepting other deities, because there is no one else.
Also, the concept of God being Formless (the real Truth) as well as with Form (for human understanding) has perplexed many purists by arguing that there are contradictions in Vedic scriptures, and hence, they should be discarded. Vedic scriptures, in their own characteristic way, create apparent contradictions, and then give clues to the real meaning. That way, they do make the mind think and inquire in the pursuit of truth. They provide a perfect backdrop for a rigorous exercise of the mind in search of truth. One does not have to just accept, one has to search it out, and experience it.
In summary, there is only One God, who is formless.
A8. Like all Monotheistic religions there is only one God in Hinduism. But, Hinduism does not stop there. According to Vedic scriptures, upon which Hinduism is based, there is not only one God, but God is the only One - and there is no second. In other words, there exists nothing else, but God. Hence, God exists in everything.
And that God (Brahman) is Formless, without attributes. He is without beginning or end, is infinite, and is without any characteristic. Now, that is a problem for the human mind. How can one comprehend something that does not have a form or no characteristics? So, in order for the human mind to comprehend God, form had to be given.
But, the question is which form? By definition, God exists in everything that has a form! So, it is then obvious that God can be worshipped in ANY form. Hence, Hindus conceived several forms of God - depending on which characteristic of God one wants to predominate in one's worship. Hence, Brahama became the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, Mahesh the Destroyer, Krishna the Loving Form, Saraswati the Goddess of Knowledge, Laxmi the Goddess of Wealth, etc. By extension, Jesus Chris or Allah or any God by any name should be (and are) equally acceptable, because all of them refer to the same God.
In all this, formless God still remains, but comes alive in a form - or, several forms for the benefit of the human mind. This has been confused by many (including Hindus) as having several Gods. Max Muller tried to explain it by coining the term "Henotheism" - which implies worshipping one God, but accepting other deities. This, though well intentioned, is a lame attempt at explaining the real truth - i.e. God is the only One, and that is the end of it. No question about accepting other deities, because there is no one else.
Also, the concept of God being Formless (the real Truth) as well as with Form (for human understanding) has perplexed many purists by arguing that there are contradictions in Vedic scriptures, and hence, they should be discarded. Vedic scriptures, in their own characteristic way, create apparent contradictions, and then give clues to the real meaning. That way, they do make the mind think and inquire in the pursuit of truth. They provide a perfect backdrop for a rigorous exercise of the mind in search of truth. One does not have to just accept, one has to search it out, and experience it.
In summary, there is only One God, who is formless.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
7. Is this world real?
Q7. Is this world real?
A7. Absolutely.
There is obviously a misconception that this world is not real. It is. There are, in fact, many realities. The reality for a child is different than it is for an adult. It is different for somebody living in a desert than for one living near an ocean. It is different for an animal than for a human. In a dream state, what is experienced is very real (body and mind both feel it). But, in a waking state, that reality disappears, and waking reality takes over.
Hence, all experiences are real. They are only transient. Because they are not everlasting, some people labelled them as "unreal" and called the world is an "illusion".
Upanishads refer to a reality that is everlasting. This is a reality that goes beyond the waking state, beyond the dream state, beyond the state of dreamless sleep - into a fourth state (called "Turiya"), which is akin to waking up in dreamless sleep. The highest reality, and the ultimate truth - according to those who have experienced it.
Hence, there are various layers of reality. The world is real, no doubt.
A7. Absolutely.
There is obviously a misconception that this world is not real. It is. There are, in fact, many realities. The reality for a child is different than it is for an adult. It is different for somebody living in a desert than for one living near an ocean. It is different for an animal than for a human. In a dream state, what is experienced is very real (body and mind both feel it). But, in a waking state, that reality disappears, and waking reality takes over.
Hence, all experiences are real. They are only transient. Because they are not everlasting, some people labelled them as "unreal" and called the world is an "illusion".
Upanishads refer to a reality that is everlasting. This is a reality that goes beyond the waking state, beyond the dream state, beyond the state of dreamless sleep - into a fourth state (called "Turiya"), which is akin to waking up in dreamless sleep. The highest reality, and the ultimate truth - according to those who have experienced it.
Hence, there are various layers of reality. The world is real, no doubt.
6. Renunciation II
Q6. Don't the scriptures talk about renouncing the world?
A6. No.
As explained earlier (#5), they refer to the renunciation of the "fruit" of action.
To a child, toys are very dear. When the child grows up, he does not long for those toys any more. Did the adult renounce toys? The adult's needs simply changed. It changed to a higher level of need. Same way, in spiritual growth, the need and interest change to a higher level of need and interest. Some of the passions that were of interest in young age may not be that interesting any more. When a flower blooms, the petals fall off. Just like that, when one continues to reach higher level of understanding, lower levels just fall off. There is no effort required here. The experience is not painful - it is quite pleasant.
Same way, spiritual growth may simply lead to falling off of certain other desires. Many have misunderstood this phenomenon with "renouncing the world". That is farthest from the truth. There is no renunciation of the world. There is only falling off of certain desires that are of no interest any more.
In fact, the process of discovering the truth (which is "Happiness") cannot be painful or difficult. It has to be a happy and fulfilling process as well. If this process is followed, the end-result (the "fruit") does not really matter. Because the process itself is beautiful, delightful, full of happiness....."Journey IS the Destination".
A6. No.
As explained earlier (#5), they refer to the renunciation of the "fruit" of action.
To a child, toys are very dear. When the child grows up, he does not long for those toys any more. Did the adult renounce toys? The adult's needs simply changed. It changed to a higher level of need. Same way, in spiritual growth, the need and interest change to a higher level of need and interest. Some of the passions that were of interest in young age may not be that interesting any more. When a flower blooms, the petals fall off. Just like that, when one continues to reach higher level of understanding, lower levels just fall off. There is no effort required here. The experience is not painful - it is quite pleasant.
Same way, spiritual growth may simply lead to falling off of certain other desires. Many have misunderstood this phenomenon with "renouncing the world". That is farthest from the truth. There is no renunciation of the world. There is only falling off of certain desires that are of no interest any more.
In fact, the process of discovering the truth (which is "Happiness") cannot be painful or difficult. It has to be a happy and fulfilling process as well. If this process is followed, the end-result (the "fruit") does not really matter. Because the process itself is beautiful, delightful, full of happiness....."Journey IS the Destination".
5. Renunciation
Q5. Do we have to renounce everything in order to realize God?
A5. "Renunciation" is the most misunderstood concept in the Vedic Spiritual philosophy.
Short Answer: No.
Renounce "Action" : No
Renounce (ignore) the "Goal" : No
Renounce the "Fruit" of Action : Yes
Long Answer:
A. "Action" is given great importance. Krishna asked Arjun to act on the battlefield - and not be timid, not be dejected, not give up. And not only Action - but "active" action. Contrary to popular belief, Gandhiji's nonviolence movement (Satyagraha) was NOT a passive action, but a very active action indeed. It required an iron will and great courage. It was a super active action of the "mind" (not "body").
B. Action without knowing what we want to achieve (Goal) is not productive. It does not yield results. Hence, keeping the Goal in mind is paramount, so one can take not only "active" action, but also the "right" action.
C. But, once the Action is on its way - one should not worry about what "fruit" it yields. One should detach oneself from the results. Hence, it does not make one grieve if fruits are not to one's liking, or one is not too exhilarated if fruits are wonderful. (Evenness of Mind).
This is one of the attributes of "Sthitapragna" - as described in Gita Chapter II.
Now we know what Gandhiji meant when he summed up Gita in 3 words : Renounce and Enjoy!
A5. "Renunciation" is the most misunderstood concept in the Vedic Spiritual philosophy.
Short Answer: No.
Renounce "Action" : No
Renounce (ignore) the "Goal" : No
Renounce the "Fruit" of Action : Yes
Long Answer:
A. "Action" is given great importance. Krishna asked Arjun to act on the battlefield - and not be timid, not be dejected, not give up. And not only Action - but "active" action. Contrary to popular belief, Gandhiji's nonviolence movement (Satyagraha) was NOT a passive action, but a very active action indeed. It required an iron will and great courage. It was a super active action of the "mind" (not "body").
B. Action without knowing what we want to achieve (Goal) is not productive. It does not yield results. Hence, keeping the Goal in mind is paramount, so one can take not only "active" action, but also the "right" action.
C. But, once the Action is on its way - one should not worry about what "fruit" it yields. One should detach oneself from the results. Hence, it does not make one grieve if fruits are not to one's liking, or one is not too exhilarated if fruits are wonderful. (Evenness of Mind).
This is one of the attributes of "Sthitapragna" - as described in Gita Chapter II.
Now we know what Gandhiji meant when he summed up Gita in 3 words : Renounce and Enjoy!
4. Self-Realization
Question
4a. Is there a yard-stick of spiritual growth?
4b. Are we capable of self-realization (or, God-realization)?
4c. How would we know that we are self realized?
A. Because there are several paths that lead to God-realization, there is no one measure of spiritual growth. Each one depends on each individual soul. Yearning for such a goal itself is the evidence of progress.
B. The God-realization cannot be explained. It amounts to knowing and feeling and experiencing the absolute, which cannot be defined or described. But, it can be felt by the soul. All of us have seen the flicker of that absolute once in-a-while, whether we know it or not. The ultimate God-realization is very individual in nature. One would know when one is self-realized.
C. And for that, one does not have to wait till the end of life. It could happen at any time during one’s life-span. And one does not have to become a sage nor does one become a sage at the time of God-realization. In fact, one must continue one’s duty before, during and after the state of God-realization – whether that is of a businessman, or a householder, or a teacher or a sage.
D. We have created a lot of mystique around the nature of God, and made the whole subject very complex, creating an aura that God (or Godliness) is elusive to the humans. God is NOT elusive. I don’t think He is too far from each one of us. But, one must dedicate oneself to find Him.
E. The capacity for “self-realization” resides in every human being, independent of one’s position in society. It is also independent of one’s intellectual capacity. The so called intellectuals tend to believe that the path to realizing God is only through intellectual pursuit, but nothing can be farthest from the truth. In fact, the path of “love” and “service” to humanity is much easier (and even preferred, as it is without a selfish motive). Hence, those hundreds and thousands of people in Indian villages (and indeed, all over the world) who have dedicated their lives in the Service of others have experienced God-realization much more frequently, and are more likely to reach the ultimate state than the so called “intellectuals”. Except that these people are generally not known to the masses, and the intellectuals have no knowledge of most of them. There-in lies the irony of “ignorance” of the “knowledgeable elite”.
F. Hence, the pursuit of Godliness is not an elusive effort. It is practical, it is achievable, it is delightful. The path that leads to the ultimate happiness is also a happy one. It is challenging, for sure. But, it is not filled with mines. And this path is very succinctly described in Gita. Several people have pursued one or the other path described in Gita, and have realized God. Many such people we don’t even know.
G. However, sometimes, the Godliness is highly visible. That happens with some people, so we can emulate them and learn from them. It is a reminder to us all that Godliness exists right amongst us. Some names that come to mind are: Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Mahavir, Guru Nanak, Rama, Krishna, Sankaracharya, Gandhiji, Mother Teresa…etc. (One would argue that some of these humans were really incarnations of God, but let it not be lost on us that each one of us is divine, and hence, each one of us is an incarnation of God). The Advaita philosophy of Vedanta amply bares this out.
H. I also think that “self-realization” does not completely describe the ultimate “God-realization”. The word “self-realization” is too restrictive (and also somewhat selfish). One can see God in others, and hence, experience God, without realizing within one’s own self. That is also a very divine experience.
November 14, 2006
4a. Is there a yard-stick of spiritual growth?
4b. Are we capable of self-realization (or, God-realization)?
4c. How would we know that we are self realized?
A. Because there are several paths that lead to God-realization, there is no one measure of spiritual growth. Each one depends on each individual soul. Yearning for such a goal itself is the evidence of progress.
B. The God-realization cannot be explained. It amounts to knowing and feeling and experiencing the absolute, which cannot be defined or described. But, it can be felt by the soul. All of us have seen the flicker of that absolute once in-a-while, whether we know it or not. The ultimate God-realization is very individual in nature. One would know when one is self-realized.
C. And for that, one does not have to wait till the end of life. It could happen at any time during one’s life-span. And one does not have to become a sage nor does one become a sage at the time of God-realization. In fact, one must continue one’s duty before, during and after the state of God-realization – whether that is of a businessman, or a householder, or a teacher or a sage.
D. We have created a lot of mystique around the nature of God, and made the whole subject very complex, creating an aura that God (or Godliness) is elusive to the humans. God is NOT elusive. I don’t think He is too far from each one of us. But, one must dedicate oneself to find Him.
E. The capacity for “self-realization” resides in every human being, independent of one’s position in society. It is also independent of one’s intellectual capacity. The so called intellectuals tend to believe that the path to realizing God is only through intellectual pursuit, but nothing can be farthest from the truth. In fact, the path of “love” and “service” to humanity is much easier (and even preferred, as it is without a selfish motive). Hence, those hundreds and thousands of people in Indian villages (and indeed, all over the world) who have dedicated their lives in the Service of others have experienced God-realization much more frequently, and are more likely to reach the ultimate state than the so called “intellectuals”. Except that these people are generally not known to the masses, and the intellectuals have no knowledge of most of them. There-in lies the irony of “ignorance” of the “knowledgeable elite”.
F. Hence, the pursuit of Godliness is not an elusive effort. It is practical, it is achievable, it is delightful. The path that leads to the ultimate happiness is also a happy one. It is challenging, for sure. But, it is not filled with mines. And this path is very succinctly described in Gita. Several people have pursued one or the other path described in Gita, and have realized God. Many such people we don’t even know.
G. However, sometimes, the Godliness is highly visible. That happens with some people, so we can emulate them and learn from them. It is a reminder to us all that Godliness exists right amongst us. Some names that come to mind are: Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Mahavir, Guru Nanak, Rama, Krishna, Sankaracharya, Gandhiji, Mother Teresa…etc. (One would argue that some of these humans were really incarnations of God, but let it not be lost on us that each one of us is divine, and hence, each one of us is an incarnation of God). The Advaita philosophy of Vedanta amply bares this out.
H. I also think that “self-realization” does not completely describe the ultimate “God-realization”. The word “self-realization” is too restrictive (and also somewhat selfish). One can see God in others, and hence, experience God, without realizing within one’s own self. That is also a very divine experience.
November 14, 2006
3. The "Why" of "What" and Unity of Soul
Q3.
In a simplistic manner, it seems that the sages had figured out a model of universe which matches some aspects of the model that science proposes. That says great things about the power of thinking and observation that they possessed. However, in this day and age, when science has a more refined model, and a more refined way of explaining it, why go back to the older model?
What is most intriguing is the model for consciousness and the "thinker of thoughts". Science is not able to explain that, and until it does, one would consider that part to be a conjecture on the part of sages. Certainly, going inward provides peace and calmness but does that mean that there is a soul and there are common bonds among all human beings?
A3.
A very fundamental question indeed : "Thinker of Thoughts"....or, "Who is the Knower" - and "How can one Know the Knower"...
Sages did not develop a line of reasoning. Consequently, they did not develop a theory, nor did they conjecture anything. They simply reported what they "experienced" or "observed". It is a different matter if one thinks they were just making it up, or that they were under illusion. One would never know.
But, what is known is that these experiences and observations are repeated by several of them over and over again (over hundreds of years) - in various forms - all saying the same thing. Some of which is proven by Science through material observations, and rest is not. So, it is not unreasonable to believe what is already proven by Science is to be accepted, and what is not proven yet - one has to be skeptical about.
But, in all this - there is clarity on their part about their "experience". They challenge us NOT to believe them - but to "live" them - "experience it ourselves". And that is the end of it. They are simply telling us "what is" - and prod us "to find out for ourselves".
Science may one day succeed in answering the question, and we hope it does - during our life time (whatever may be the answer). Sages tell us there is also another way to find out - which they did - and reported what they found. They did not provide any reason - because they did not have to. Or, may be they did not even know what the reasons could be. They could have been clueless. Thanks to Science that the thread of reasoning can be developed to understand the "why" of "what".
Peace and Calmness were furthest from the minds of the sages when they decided to go inwards (The current thinking on meditation implies peace of mind, but that was not their purpose). Sages wanted to go inward to find out what is there - if at all anything. I am not sure if they had any peace....it was the adventure...the discovery....the thirst for knowing the knower.......in wanting to answer the very question you are asking.
So, in summary : They have not reasoned that the soul exists, or that there are common bonds among living souls. They have just observed. And they challenge us - whether we reason it or not - to experience it. They are ambivalent about whether we believe it or not (their followers may not be). In fact, all of the Vedic philosophy culminates into experiencing and practising (living) the truths - because that is the only thing of value. Making the mind "believe or not" is only a game, is stimulating and entertaining - sounds good - but, has no value. And also, as a result, their focus was on living a good life (independent of their philosophical/spiritual/religious beliefs). Atheists fit right in. We don't have to "believe". We only have to "live". That is why when some say they want to do "good" - that is sufficient. And no more is required of life.
And they had no intention of making it (what they found) into a religion or a cult or a belief system. They simply reported, in great awe, what they discovered - and urged others to do the discovery themselves - because it was beautiful, blissful, delightful......
But.......
Humans took these core beliefs and expanded them. It was with this fundamental understanding that everything became sacred for them. Hence, one can see why almost everything in Hinduism became sacred. To the point of insanity.....
And that kind of insanity (or fanaticism) shows in all religions. Rather than taking a "holistic" view of the world, they have all taken a narrow view. Partly because it is easy, and it suits the purpose of amassing power over the masses, and makes themselves feel superior. But, mainly because they just don't know better.
And it is because of this reason that I am sympathetic to Hinduism (and other religions as well). I have realized that we should take a high road - and give people the benefit of the doubt, because they do not know better. They mean well, but their beliefs are still primitive (I feel like a King here!). If a child does not understand Rocket Science - we understand. We strive to create an environment where one will understand it - if one wants to. We don't need to beat him up, or argue.
I suspect, I will find the same kind of situation in other religions. May be, their fundamental revelations were in line with what the Upanishads say (Truth is One), but masses have misinterpreted them. This yet remains to be seen......but, I have not lost my faith in discovering similar ideas in other religions as well. May be, the whole world is debating what is observed on the surface of the ocean - because that is what is easily visible - without realizing what lies in its enormous depth. On the surface is what we observe as religion and science today - at this point in time (out of a life of several billion more years?) - while much of the depth remains unexplored. May be, it is natural that we are prisoners of what we know today, and conclude that what we do not know today cannot be the truth.
But, back to your questions - the "Thinker of Thoughts" is not known yet. But, for that matter, Science does not know a lot about the Universe yet. There is yet a LOT to know. And that is a good thing - keeps life interesting and challenging. So, even if we do not know the ultimate truth, we have billions of years to find out - "why".
The existence of a soul, and the "unity" of life is not proven (even though, people have arguments on both sides) - only observed and experienced, according to the sages. If that does not make us believe in it, it would certainly give us a pause - something to think about - for sure. Not whether it is true or not, but - could it be true?
In a simplistic manner, it seems that the sages had figured out a model of universe which matches some aspects of the model that science proposes. That says great things about the power of thinking and observation that they possessed. However, in this day and age, when science has a more refined model, and a more refined way of explaining it, why go back to the older model?
What is most intriguing is the model for consciousness and the "thinker of thoughts". Science is not able to explain that, and until it does, one would consider that part to be a conjecture on the part of sages. Certainly, going inward provides peace and calmness but does that mean that there is a soul and there are common bonds among all human beings?
A3.
A very fundamental question indeed : "Thinker of Thoughts"....or, "Who is the Knower" - and "How can one Know the Knower"...
Sages did not develop a line of reasoning. Consequently, they did not develop a theory, nor did they conjecture anything. They simply reported what they "experienced" or "observed". It is a different matter if one thinks they were just making it up, or that they were under illusion. One would never know.
But, what is known is that these experiences and observations are repeated by several of them over and over again (over hundreds of years) - in various forms - all saying the same thing. Some of which is proven by Science through material observations, and rest is not. So, it is not unreasonable to believe what is already proven by Science is to be accepted, and what is not proven yet - one has to be skeptical about.
But, in all this - there is clarity on their part about their "experience". They challenge us NOT to believe them - but to "live" them - "experience it ourselves". And that is the end of it. They are simply telling us "what is" - and prod us "to find out for ourselves".
Science may one day succeed in answering the question, and we hope it does - during our life time (whatever may be the answer). Sages tell us there is also another way to find out - which they did - and reported what they found. They did not provide any reason - because they did not have to. Or, may be they did not even know what the reasons could be. They could have been clueless. Thanks to Science that the thread of reasoning can be developed to understand the "why" of "what".
Peace and Calmness were furthest from the minds of the sages when they decided to go inwards (The current thinking on meditation implies peace of mind, but that was not their purpose). Sages wanted to go inward to find out what is there - if at all anything. I am not sure if they had any peace....it was the adventure...the discovery....the thirst for knowing the knower.......in wanting to answer the very question you are asking.
So, in summary : They have not reasoned that the soul exists, or that there are common bonds among living souls. They have just observed. And they challenge us - whether we reason it or not - to experience it. They are ambivalent about whether we believe it or not (their followers may not be). In fact, all of the Vedic philosophy culminates into experiencing and practising (living) the truths - because that is the only thing of value. Making the mind "believe or not" is only a game, is stimulating and entertaining - sounds good - but, has no value. And also, as a result, their focus was on living a good life (independent of their philosophical/spiritual/religious beliefs). Atheists fit right in. We don't have to "believe". We only have to "live". That is why when some say they want to do "good" - that is sufficient. And no more is required of life.
And they had no intention of making it (what they found) into a religion or a cult or a belief system. They simply reported, in great awe, what they discovered - and urged others to do the discovery themselves - because it was beautiful, blissful, delightful......
But.......
Humans took these core beliefs and expanded them. It was with this fundamental understanding that everything became sacred for them. Hence, one can see why almost everything in Hinduism became sacred. To the point of insanity.....
And that kind of insanity (or fanaticism) shows in all religions. Rather than taking a "holistic" view of the world, they have all taken a narrow view. Partly because it is easy, and it suits the purpose of amassing power over the masses, and makes themselves feel superior. But, mainly because they just don't know better.
And it is because of this reason that I am sympathetic to Hinduism (and other religions as well). I have realized that we should take a high road - and give people the benefit of the doubt, because they do not know better. They mean well, but their beliefs are still primitive (I feel like a King here!). If a child does not understand Rocket Science - we understand. We strive to create an environment where one will understand it - if one wants to. We don't need to beat him up, or argue.
I suspect, I will find the same kind of situation in other religions. May be, their fundamental revelations were in line with what the Upanishads say (Truth is One), but masses have misinterpreted them. This yet remains to be seen......but, I have not lost my faith in discovering similar ideas in other religions as well. May be, the whole world is debating what is observed on the surface of the ocean - because that is what is easily visible - without realizing what lies in its enormous depth. On the surface is what we observe as religion and science today - at this point in time (out of a life of several billion more years?) - while much of the depth remains unexplored. May be, it is natural that we are prisoners of what we know today, and conclude that what we do not know today cannot be the truth.
But, back to your questions - the "Thinker of Thoughts" is not known yet. But, for that matter, Science does not know a lot about the Universe yet. There is yet a LOT to know. And that is a good thing - keeps life interesting and challenging. So, even if we do not know the ultimate truth, we have billions of years to find out - "why".
The existence of a soul, and the "unity" of life is not proven (even though, people have arguments on both sides) - only observed and experienced, according to the sages. If that does not make us believe in it, it would certainly give us a pause - something to think about - for sure. Not whether it is true or not, but - could it be true?
2. The Nature of Soul
Q2. What is the nature of Soul?
A2. Upanishads also declare the supreme nature of soul, and hence, freedom of mind, fearlessness, the inherent capacity of humans to achieve glorious heights - as long as they try ("effort" is given a big role - rather than the "result"). There is nothing left to chance (or to "God") - contrary to popular belief. The Energy is present in all humans (another name "Atman") - its existence is affirmed, but it is not a sufficient condition for anything.....one must use it.........otherwise, it has no meaning and no value. It is a powerful force - and Upanishads, time and again, keep reiterating that humans must use that energy to achieve happiness (which, in theological terms, could mean "realize God" or "Samadhi" or "Moksha" - but these are only play on words).
A2. Upanishads also declare the supreme nature of soul, and hence, freedom of mind, fearlessness, the inherent capacity of humans to achieve glorious heights - as long as they try ("effort" is given a big role - rather than the "result"). There is nothing left to chance (or to "God") - contrary to popular belief. The Energy is present in all humans (another name "Atman") - its existence is affirmed, but it is not a sufficient condition for anything.....one must use it.........otherwise, it has no meaning and no value. It is a powerful force - and Upanishads, time and again, keep reiterating that humans must use that energy to achieve happiness (which, in theological terms, could mean "realize God" or "Samadhi" or "Moksha" - but these are only play on words).
1. The Nature of God
Q1. What does the Spiritual Science say about the Nature of God?
A1.
1. There is a Force (call it a Force or Energy, or Spirit, or whatever) that fuels the universe
2. This force is indescribable (formless - with no attributes), infinite and everlasting
3. This force - that created the big bang (let us call it the creator) and what came out of it (the creation) are the same - that the laws of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force.....and the light spectrum, the galaxies, the nature and the Universe - are nothing but manifestations (or transformations) of the same original force (or energy)
4. According to Upanishads, they should be revered, in all its forms (the word they use is "sacred")
5. Because, for the humans, it is difficult to conceive the formless - something one cannot comprehend with one's sense organs, and even for the mind it is abstract - it had to be given a name - they happened to call it "Brahman" (or, any other name would equally suffice) - which many equate with the term "God" (or, Godhead).
Hence, Science and Sanatan Dharma (or, Vedic Religion - Vedas, Upanishads, Gita, etc.) complement and reinforce each other very well, with no contradiction.
A1.
1. There is a Force (call it a Force or Energy, or Spirit, or whatever) that fuels the universe
2. This force is indescribable (formless - with no attributes), infinite and everlasting
3. This force - that created the big bang (let us call it the creator) and what came out of it (the creation) are the same - that the laws of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force.....and the light spectrum, the galaxies, the nature and the Universe - are nothing but manifestations (or transformations) of the same original force (or energy)
4. According to Upanishads, they should be revered, in all its forms (the word they use is "sacred")
5. Because, for the humans, it is difficult to conceive the formless - something one cannot comprehend with one's sense organs, and even for the mind it is abstract - it had to be given a name - they happened to call it "Brahman" (or, any other name would equally suffice) - which many equate with the term "God" (or, Godhead).
Hence, Science and Sanatan Dharma (or, Vedic Religion - Vedas, Upanishads, Gita, etc.) complement and reinforce each other very well, with no contradiction.
Why this Blog?
I have been discussing, either in person or through emails, the "Spiritual Science" with my friends. One of them suggested that I create a blog, and make my thoughts visible, so others can comment on it, and make it better. So, in all humility, I have gathered the courage to do so. I have used the Q&A format, as that has been generally the mode of discussion, and reproduced some of the email correspondence.
The term "spirituality" has been quite maligned among the modern elite. It somehow conjures up images of bearded renunciates exiled in mountains and forests - the mystics who are out of this world. Much of the imagery centers around renouncing the world and withdrawing from worldly things.
In my own study, I have found quite the opposite. In fact, I have seen repeated calls for a very active and fulfilling life. Not passive withdrawal, but active involvement in life. This has been a big surprise!
This subject itself, like many subjects dear to me (e.g. Music, Dance, Literature, Astronomy, Quantum Physics, Nature, History, Travels, Service, etc.), has been a surprise discovery as well. I have found it to be beautiful, deeply interesting, highly elevating, and - yes, scientific. And contrary to the general belief that this subject belongs to those non-worldly mystics, I have seen it practiced by many a worldly man (and woman). How delightful!
It is generally believed that the spiritual truth is difficult to understand and is illusive. Wrong again. It is not. I feel well grounded in its understanding, however imperfect.
Why imperfect?
The fundamental truth is known to humans. Has been known for hundreds of years. The "Mountain" is known and visible. But, it looks different from different sides, different angles, different heights, in different colors and in different seasons. Its shades are many - may be as many as there are people on earth. Hence, it is interesting to know those different views, and marvel at them. That journey has just begun. The imperfection comes from not knowing the mountain in all its shades and all its glory. But, mistake not - the "Mountain" IS known. There is no mystery.
"Truth is one, wise call it by different names" - say the Upanishads.
I should mention that much of my current thinking is deeply influenced by several people - beginning with my Mother and Father, and for last several years, by Gandhiji and his life, and also by the writings of Eknath Easwaran and countless others. Several discourses, discussions and debates, and age old writings have shaped my views as well. I am sure they will continue to evolve. Many of my friends and well-wishers have asked me (and continue to ask me) very probing questions. They have made my quest for learning this science even deeper, and exhilarating. I owe a lot to them.
I am also aware that thousands of others know this subject much better than I do. And millions of others live it and practice it. They either write a book, or practice what they preach - and not make a big deal about it. I have settled for a blog - for now, at least. I hope, the readers will make me - and all of us - better.
And, in the process, also enjoy the experience!
The term "spirituality" has been quite maligned among the modern elite. It somehow conjures up images of bearded renunciates exiled in mountains and forests - the mystics who are out of this world. Much of the imagery centers around renouncing the world and withdrawing from worldly things.
In my own study, I have found quite the opposite. In fact, I have seen repeated calls for a very active and fulfilling life. Not passive withdrawal, but active involvement in life. This has been a big surprise!
This subject itself, like many subjects dear to me (e.g. Music, Dance, Literature, Astronomy, Quantum Physics, Nature, History, Travels, Service, etc.), has been a surprise discovery as well. I have found it to be beautiful, deeply interesting, highly elevating, and - yes, scientific. And contrary to the general belief that this subject belongs to those non-worldly mystics, I have seen it practiced by many a worldly man (and woman). How delightful!
It is generally believed that the spiritual truth is difficult to understand and is illusive. Wrong again. It is not. I feel well grounded in its understanding, however imperfect.
Why imperfect?
The fundamental truth is known to humans. Has been known for hundreds of years. The "Mountain" is known and visible. But, it looks different from different sides, different angles, different heights, in different colors and in different seasons. Its shades are many - may be as many as there are people on earth. Hence, it is interesting to know those different views, and marvel at them. That journey has just begun. The imperfection comes from not knowing the mountain in all its shades and all its glory. But, mistake not - the "Mountain" IS known. There is no mystery.
"Truth is one, wise call it by different names" - say the Upanishads.
I should mention that much of my current thinking is deeply influenced by several people - beginning with my Mother and Father, and for last several years, by Gandhiji and his life, and also by the writings of Eknath Easwaran and countless others. Several discourses, discussions and debates, and age old writings have shaped my views as well. I am sure they will continue to evolve. Many of my friends and well-wishers have asked me (and continue to ask me) very probing questions. They have made my quest for learning this science even deeper, and exhilarating. I owe a lot to them.
I am also aware that thousands of others know this subject much better than I do. And millions of others live it and practice it. They either write a book, or practice what they preach - and not make a big deal about it. I have settled for a blog - for now, at least. I hope, the readers will make me - and all of us - better.
And, in the process, also enjoy the experience!
Amit
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.JPG)