Friday, July 2nd, 2010
Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Nota Bene II
We are asking so many questions about God, but can we ask just a few questions for ourselves? Do we really believe in God? If we really believe in Him, then we wouldn’t be doing what we are doing now. If He really comes in front of us, then we would not be treating Him as we are treating Him now when He is not present in front of us. If He really comes here and sees us doing what we are not supposed to be doing, then would He be proud of us after all His teaching and preaching?
Questions to ask for ourselves:
If we really believe in Him, then have we ever tried to achieve a few good qualities of Him? If we believe in humanity, then how come we, at times, become inhumane to others? We should not be asking for death of others, as in case of death sentence, for the death of our loved ones. God never preached an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather He taught us for forgiveness. How can we ask for forgiveness from Him, if are not willing to forgive others? If He is merciful, then why we do not show mercy to others? Why we hurt others or kill them – doesn’t matter if they are animals or humans, friends or foes, rich or poor, good or bad, justified or unjustified, for good or for bad. If we believe Him as the judge of everyone then why are we judging others? If we believe He does justice to others, then how can we do injustice to others? If we believe He is the boss, then why we take His law in our hands and try to be bossy on others. If we know He has tolerated and suffered for others and is still doing so, then why we are not so tolerant to others. Why we bother whom, why, and how others worship to Him, if we are not sure for ourselves why, how, and whom we worship. If we cannot develop any of His good qualities in us, then how can we expect Him to enjoy our company in His abode? If we firmly believe in Him, then why do we have doubt in Him? If we believe in Him then why do we have double standards – one for us and one for others; or why do we have triple standards for our own self – for thinking something else, saying something else, and doing something else?
Lastly, a few words about the science:
Let’s ask a few questions about the science and religion. Has anyone heard any scientists saying, “I study and teach science, astronomy, or physics in college and university, but I do not believe in black hole,” or “I do not believe that black hole exists.” “Well, Gravity is Gravity, but, I believe in Newton’s Gravity and do not believe in Einstein’s Gravity.” “I teach solar system, but I do not believe that the sun is at the center.” “I do not believe that the earth is round. I personally believe that the earth is flat.” Well, this happens in case of religion and religious philosophy. One may hear, among religious philosophers, saying that, “I study and teach religious philosophy, but, I do not believe in God or in His existence.” “I teach religion but I do not believe in Western God. I believe in Eastern God.” “I preach about the religious practices and commands of God to others, but, I personally do not believe in strictly following them.” In science the measures used, for example, of time, length, volume, mass, etc., are standard: nationally and internationally, globally and universally, for the scientists and for laymen, for poor and rich, or for believers and for non-believers. Well, for religion, the measures or ethical and moral do’s and don’ts, such as, not to steal, not to deceive, not to adulterate, not to gain or use wealth in wrongful way, to do humanitarian or charitable work, etc. are all relative, never absolute or neutral. They change according to the person, time, circumstances, creed, greed, wealth, color, race, gender, sexual orientation, and individual preferences. We see double or triple standards for ourselves and for others, for believing, preaching, and practicing. We talk about the Truth but we try to hide the truth. The science proposes and publishes theories, but never impose upon others to believe them. Whichever theory is true would be survived in the harsh experimental testing and rigorous argumentative discourses and debates and then would be accepted widely until it is disproved by another theory that would be more truthful, veridical, and realistic. Science is open to accept the truth and is also open to reject the un-truth. In case of religion, it is not like that. God’s words are all revealed in the scriptures but we want, to believe and interpret them, subjectively, according to our own will, likings, preferences, or necessities. Not only that we want to promote and impose upon others what we believe is true, simply because of our deep faith and love in ourselves. In religion, we are not open to accept criticism, nor are we willing to accept other beliefs simply because we do not know the truth. Until then belief simply remain as a belief. These are the differences between trust in the science and faith in the religion. For the majority of people, in the current era of modernization, religion has remained the subject of belief and discussion only, whereas, science is becoming day by day the subject of trust. The root cause of the difference is in the application or practicing. Whatever the science says people apply and whatever religion says people are reluctant to put into practice.
Why the science and spirituality do not go together? Why religions shy away from the science and why many scientists do not believe in God? Spirituality is based on the faith while science is based on the facts. Spirituality has no limitations, science has limitations. Spirituality thinks farther and faster but philosophically, science thinks comparatively nearer and slower but firmly. We can say that spirituality is far-sighted, science is near-sighted. If we believe in God, then we should not have to worry even for science. Science can make us untrue but not the god. If we worry about the science, then in fact we are worried about ourselves, about the philosophies that we have created, about the understanding of the scriptures that we have interpreted, and about the explanations of God that we have enforced to or imparted upon others, that we might be disproved otherwise by the science. If we do worry, then believe that, God also worries with us. If God doesn’t worry then why should we worry at all? Shouldn’t we be that courageous or confident? Science is not our enemy. Science is our friend helping us to understand the truth, to correct us if we are doing anything mistakenly. Are not we supposed to be using the science to explore the Truth, to propagate the Truth, and to keep us alive and healthy for long to enjoy the bliss of the Truth? Science and spirituality go together and cannot be separated from our lives. As religious people, we might think that science is our enemy, but on the contrary, science is our rival in searching for the truth. So, let it race and go deeper and deeper. It will ultimately help us. Ultimately, a day will come when science will also be ineffable and say, “Truth is there, but we are incapable to describe it.” “Not this, not this,” as it is said for God in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, “Neti, Neti” meaning, “this is not the Truth, the Truth is still beyond – beyond our reach, beyond our description, and beyond our understanding.” God is indescribable.
Tags:a tooth for a tooth, Absolute, an eye for an eye, animals, application, astronomy, bad, belief, believe, believers, believing, Black Hole, bliss, boss, Brihadaranyaka, charitable, circumstances, color, commands, Concluding comments, confident, courageous, creed, criticism, Darshan, debates, discourses, discussion, disproved, do’s and don’ts, double standards, Earth, enemy, enforced, ethical, experimental, explanations, facts, faith, far-sighted, foes, forgiveness, friend, friends, gender, globally, God, good, gravity, greed, humanitarian, humanity, humans, hurt, imparted upon, impose upon, indescribable, ineffable, inhumane, injustice, internationally, interpret, interpretations, judge, justice, justified, laymen, length, liking, love, mass, measures, merciful, mercy, modernization, moral, nationally, near-sighted, necessities, Neti, neutral, non-believers, Nota Bene, person, Philosophy, physics, poor, practice, practicing, preaching, preference, preferences, promote, race, realistic, relative, religion, religious practices, rich, rival, science, Scientists, sexual orientation, Shad Darshan, spirituality, standard, subject, subjectively, sun, testing, time, tolerant, triple standards, trust, Truth, truthful, understanding, universally, unjustified, Upanishad, veridical, volume, wealth, will, worry
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Nota Bene II | Comments Closed
Thursday, July 1st, 2010
Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Conclusion II
In conclusion, all of the above philosophies of Hinduism describe about the fundamental realities, from one, two, three, or five, and their relationships with each other. We can reduce all the realities, before the creation, to just one reality – God. But then we cannot explain all the realities that are in existence after the very first creation. The creation itself is a reality. We have to explain everything based on the minimum possible number of fundamental realities considering all the past, present, and future scenarios of existence. Even scientists have difficulty in reducing everything to just one particle and one force.
All philosophies agree that the Supreme Being is one, unique, incomparable, and unparalleled, who is conceived or understood as the perfect, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, creator, source, and controller of the universe, the cosmos, and everything. He is eternal, without beginning and end, forever stable, and unchanging. He is beyond time, space, deeds, and material world of maya. He is Soul of the souls and God of the gods. In Hinduism, He is known as Paramatma, Parabrahm, Purushottam, or Narayan. “Parabrahm” is so named because it is beyond or transcendental to Brahm (Param Brahm).
Brahm or the Abode of Parabrahm (God) is another reality which is penultimate to Parabrahm. Initially Brahm and Parabrahm were inferred as one reality, but later on it was clearly understood that Parabrahm and Brahm, God and His abode, cannot be just one reality. They are two different realities. Scriptures have described some of the characteristics exclusively for Parabrahm that cannot be applies to Brahm or any other realities. Parabrahm is the Supreme Being – the topmost creator, controller, and the essence of all. Parabrahm is described as the soul (shariri) of Brahm (sharir). Brahm is described as the body (sharir) of Parabrahm. Just as body (sharir) and soul (shariri) seems to be one, Brahm and Parabrahm were also understood to be one reality. But, they are not one and the same entity. Parabrahm can sustain without Brahm, but Brahm cannot sustain without Parabrahm.
In Hinduism, there is description of a super-soul or universal soul called Purush or Ishwar. In Hinduism, there is a crucial distinction between Purush and Purushottam (God). Ishwar or Purush is the super-soul of brahmand (whole universe). Hinduism describes about many brahmands. It is obvious that if there are many brahmands and each brahmand is governed by its own super-soul, then there are possibilities of existence of many super-souls. Existence of many Purushas is described in Sankhya scriptures and other scriptures like Mahabharat and Purans.
In Hinduism, individual soul is understood as ontologically distinct reality from God, Nature (Prakruti), and other realities. There are many individual souls or inner-self called atma or jiv limited to each mundane physical body. Each soul is separate, distinct, and different than its body. Therefore, bodily relations are simply bodily relations and are limited to the current birth only. The past, present, and future bodily relations have nothing to do with the souls. Once the soul is free from its three kinds of body it gets liberation or salvation. Soul has to be brahmanized (brahmrup) to get ultimate salvation called Atyantik Moksh. For that the living being has to take the shelter of God and completely and unconditionally surrender to Him, who resides forever in His abode and also, as His presence on this earth, in Satpurush (God-realized person or sant), in Satshāstra (Holy Scriptures), and in Satkriyā (pious and virtuous actions). No one has seen God as scientists see or observe tiniest particles or farthest galaxies and quasars. Everything what we know about God is from the holy scriptures. Scriptures have described every tiniest detail and the characteristics of God and His true and the choicest devotee or follower. Hinduism believes in worshiping the present form of God on the earth and that also in the form like us with which we can find some resemblance or similarity, develop intimacy, do some communication, and enjoy the same bliss on this earth and in this very life as we would enjoy in His abode. This also makes sure that what we are getting here, we will be getting there in His abode. Anyway, salvation ultimately is in His presence, in His service, and in His close association whether here or in His abode.
Tags:abode, actions, ātmā, Ātyantik, bliss, body, Brahm, brahmand, brahmanized, brahmrup, Conclusion I, controller, cosmos, Creation, Creator, Darshan, deeds, devotee, distinct, Earth, eternal, existence, force, fundamental, galaxies, God, God-realized, Hinduism, Holy Scriptures, incomparable, inner-self, Ishwar, jiv, liberation, living being, Mahābhārat, material, maya, moksh, mundane, Narayan, Nature, observe, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, ontologically, Parabrahm, Param, Paramātmā, particle, particles, penultimate, perfect, Philosophy, physical, pious, Prakruti, Purāns, Purush, Purushottam, quasars, realities, Reality, salvation, Sankhya, Sant, Satkriyā, Satpurush, Satshāstra, Scientists, Scriptures, Shad Darshan, sharir, shariri, shelter, soul, source, space, stable, super-soul, Supreme Being, time, unchanging, unique, universal soul, universe, unparalleled, virtuous, world
Posted in Conclusion II, Hinduism - Philosophies | Comments Closed
Wednesday, June 16th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Swaminarayan philosophy – Jiv
Jiv and its body
1. Jiv or Soul is the essence or life force of the body, which is ontologically different than the elements of the body. The elements of body inherently carries three qualities (tri-gunas) of maya or prakruti, whereas, soul is free of these three qualities, namely, rajas, tamas, and satva, of maya. So, it is known as “asangi”. The body acts as the field (kshetra) for the soul and the soul is body’s fielder (kshetragna). The essence of a jiv or ātmā (soul) is Paramatma (the soul of the souls). Jiv is subtle (sukshma) like an atom (anu). Paramatma is subtler than jiv. Jiv is spiritual, sentient, conscious, or liveliness (chaitanya-rup) in nature, but is finite in capabilities and limited in power, that is restricted to its body only. In contrast, the body is mundane, insentient, or worldly in nature.
Jiv pervades the whole body by its knowledgeability or knowing power (gnan-shakti). It is impenetrable (achhedya), indivisible (abhedya), non-aging (ajar), indestructible (amar), and invisible in characteristics. It is eternal, means, it has no origin (anādi) and permanent (shaswat or sanatana). Souls are many (countless or infinite) in numbers. When a soul becomes brahmrup or brahm-like in qualities, it achieves its full potential. All free (mukta) souls (atma) in the abode of God are identical and have equal potential. In every birth, the soul gets different body in different ways by different parents. In different bodies different souls seems to show different potential and different power. The same soul changes its body many times within the cycle of births and deaths (samsār chakra of lakh chorāsi) among the 8.4 million life forms, until it gets final redemption or liberation. The soul and its body have “the garment and the wearer of that garment” relationship. Person inside (soul) remains the same but garments (bodies) are changed in every birth. The soul and its body also have “the house and its householder” relationship. Householder controls and maintains the house. Once the householder abandons the house, it becomes a haunted house and gets ruined and ultimately becomes “dust unto dust”. In the “Vedastuti” chapter 87 of Dasham Scand of Shrimad Bhagwat Puran it is said that God has created for the soul its body consisting of senses, intelligence, mind, and prāns just to attain liberation. Other usages of the body are minor and just coincidental. Jiv’s body (sharir) is of three kinds: Sthul (gross), Sukshma (subtle), and Kāran (causal), of which the causal body is full of ignorance. It has three states (avasthā): jāgrat (awaken), swapna (dream), and sushupti (deep sleep). The body consists of 24 elements, of which prān, in general, is the topmost (physiological) element. No other philosophies have mentioned about “pran.” Scientists may create fully functioning cell either from the scratch or from the base cell by changing its nucleus with synthetic or semisynthetic nucleus. The functionality of the synthesized cell, test-tube cell, clone cell, or stem cell is because of “pran” which is part of 24 physical and physiological elements, thus, suggesting, the difference between pran and jiv (soul). Jiv then enters the cell and automatically takes the charge according to the system governed by deeds or actions (karma) under the supreme authority or controlling power of God. Souls are divine (divya) and eternal (anadi), and cannot be created, synthesized, or made in the laboratory. In this way, other religious philosophical systems may still be vulnerable to the rigorous testing by science but Hinduism seems to be rather more foolproof religious philosophical system. The soul has to detach from its causal body (Karan sharir) that harbors the basic ignorance (mul-agnān), by gaining true knowledge, to go to the abode of God or to enjoy the company and the bliss of God. On final redemption or liberation, after leaving this mundane body, jiv gets a new kind of body when it stays in Akshardhām or Aksharbrahm – the abode of God Purushottam. This new kind of body is called “Brahmamay tanu” or “divya tanu.” It is of “chaitanya” (sentient) or “divya” (divine) in nature which is quite distinct from the mundane body consisting of the eight kinds of “jad prakruti.”
Tags:abhedya, abode, achhedya, actions, ajar, akshar, Aksharbrahm, Akshardhām, amar, anādi, anu, asangi, ātmā, atom, avasthā, bliss, body, Brahm-like, Brahmamay, brahmrup, causal, cell, chaitanya, chaitanya-rup, clone cell, conscious, created, Darshan, Dasham Scand, deeds, divine, divya, elements, essence, eternal, field, fielder, free, gnan-shakti, God, gross, ignorance, impenetrable, in characteristic. Eternal, indestructible, indivisible, insentient, invisible, jad prakruti, jāgrat, jiv, kāran, Karma, Kshetra, Kshetragna, laboratory, lakh chorāsi, liberation, life force, liveliness, maya, mukta, mul-agnān, mundane, Nature, non-aging, nucleus, Paramātmā, permanent, philosophical, Philosophy, physical, physiological, Prakruti, prān, prāns, Puran, Purushottam, qualities, rajas, redemption, religious, samsār chakra, sanatana, satva, Scientists, sentient, Shad Darshan, sharir, shāswat, Shrimad Bhagwat, soul, spiritual, stem cell, Sthul, subtle, sukshma, sushupti, Swaminarayan, swapna, synthesized, synthesized cell, tamas, tanu, test-tube cell, tri-gunas, Vedānta, Vedastuti, worldly
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Jiv, Navya Vishishtadvaita, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Darshan (Philosophy) XXXIV
Friday, July 2nd, 2010Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Nota Bene II
We are asking so many questions about God, but can we ask just a few questions for ourselves? Do we really believe in God? If we really believe in Him, then we wouldn’t be doing what we are doing now. If He really comes in front of us, then we would not be treating Him as we are treating Him now when He is not present in front of us. If He really comes here and sees us doing what we are not supposed to be doing, then would He be proud of us after all His teaching and preaching?
Questions to ask for ourselves:
If we really believe in Him, then have we ever tried to achieve a few good qualities of Him? If we believe in humanity, then how come we, at times, become inhumane to others? We should not be asking for death of others, as in case of death sentence, for the death of our loved ones. God never preached an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather He taught us for forgiveness. How can we ask for forgiveness from Him, if are not willing to forgive others? If He is merciful, then why we do not show mercy to others? Why we hurt others or kill them – doesn’t matter if they are animals or humans, friends or foes, rich or poor, good or bad, justified or unjustified, for good or for bad. If we believe Him as the judge of everyone then why are we judging others? If we believe He does justice to others, then how can we do injustice to others? If we believe He is the boss, then why we take His law in our hands and try to be bossy on others. If we know He has tolerated and suffered for others and is still doing so, then why we are not so tolerant to others. Why we bother whom, why, and how others worship to Him, if we are not sure for ourselves why, how, and whom we worship. If we cannot develop any of His good qualities in us, then how can we expect Him to enjoy our company in His abode? If we firmly believe in Him, then why do we have doubt in Him? If we believe in Him then why do we have double standards – one for us and one for others; or why do we have triple standards for our own self – for thinking something else, saying something else, and doing something else?
Lastly, a few words about the science:
Let’s ask a few questions about the science and religion. Has anyone heard any scientists saying, “I study and teach science, astronomy, or physics in college and university, but I do not believe in black hole,” or “I do not believe that black hole exists.” “Well, Gravity is Gravity, but, I believe in Newton’s Gravity and do not believe in Einstein’s Gravity.” “I teach solar system, but I do not believe that the sun is at the center.” “I do not believe that the earth is round. I personally believe that the earth is flat.” Well, this happens in case of religion and religious philosophy. One may hear, among religious philosophers, saying that, “I study and teach religious philosophy, but, I do not believe in God or in His existence.” “I teach religion but I do not believe in Western God. I believe in Eastern God.” “I preach about the religious practices and commands of God to others, but, I personally do not believe in strictly following them.” In science the measures used, for example, of time, length, volume, mass, etc., are standard: nationally and internationally, globally and universally, for the scientists and for laymen, for poor and rich, or for believers and for non-believers. Well, for religion, the measures or ethical and moral do’s and don’ts, such as, not to steal, not to deceive, not to adulterate, not to gain or use wealth in wrongful way, to do humanitarian or charitable work, etc. are all relative, never absolute or neutral. They change according to the person, time, circumstances, creed, greed, wealth, color, race, gender, sexual orientation, and individual preferences. We see double or triple standards for ourselves and for others, for believing, preaching, and practicing. We talk about the Truth but we try to hide the truth. The science proposes and publishes theories, but never impose upon others to believe them. Whichever theory is true would be survived in the harsh experimental testing and rigorous argumentative discourses and debates and then would be accepted widely until it is disproved by another theory that would be more truthful, veridical, and realistic. Science is open to accept the truth and is also open to reject the un-truth. In case of religion, it is not like that. God’s words are all revealed in the scriptures but we want, to believe and interpret them, subjectively, according to our own will, likings, preferences, or necessities. Not only that we want to promote and impose upon others what we believe is true, simply because of our deep faith and love in ourselves. In religion, we are not open to accept criticism, nor are we willing to accept other beliefs simply because we do not know the truth. Until then belief simply remain as a belief. These are the differences between trust in the science and faith in the religion. For the majority of people, in the current era of modernization, religion has remained the subject of belief and discussion only, whereas, science is becoming day by day the subject of trust. The root cause of the difference is in the application or practicing. Whatever the science says people apply and whatever religion says people are reluctant to put into practice.
Why the science and spirituality do not go together? Why religions shy away from the science and why many scientists do not believe in God? Spirituality is based on the faith while science is based on the facts. Spirituality has no limitations, science has limitations. Spirituality thinks farther and faster but philosophically, science thinks comparatively nearer and slower but firmly. We can say that spirituality is far-sighted, science is near-sighted. If we believe in God, then we should not have to worry even for science. Science can make us untrue but not the god. If we worry about the science, then in fact we are worried about ourselves, about the philosophies that we have created, about the understanding of the scriptures that we have interpreted, and about the explanations of God that we have enforced to or imparted upon others, that we might be disproved otherwise by the science. If we do worry, then believe that, God also worries with us. If God doesn’t worry then why should we worry at all? Shouldn’t we be that courageous or confident? Science is not our enemy. Science is our friend helping us to understand the truth, to correct us if we are doing anything mistakenly. Are not we supposed to be using the science to explore the Truth, to propagate the Truth, and to keep us alive and healthy for long to enjoy the bliss of the Truth? Science and spirituality go together and cannot be separated from our lives. As religious people, we might think that science is our enemy, but on the contrary, science is our rival in searching for the truth. So, let it race and go deeper and deeper. It will ultimately help us. Ultimately, a day will come when science will also be ineffable and say, “Truth is there, but we are incapable to describe it.” “Not this, not this,” as it is said for God in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, “Neti, Neti” meaning, “this is not the Truth, the Truth is still beyond – beyond our reach, beyond our description, and beyond our understanding.” God is indescribable.
Tags:a tooth for a tooth, Absolute, an eye for an eye, animals, application, astronomy, bad, belief, believe, believers, believing, Black Hole, bliss, boss, Brihadaranyaka, charitable, circumstances, color, commands, Concluding comments, confident, courageous, creed, criticism, Darshan, debates, discourses, discussion, disproved, do’s and don’ts, double standards, Earth, enemy, enforced, ethical, experimental, explanations, facts, faith, far-sighted, foes, forgiveness, friend, friends, gender, globally, God, good, gravity, greed, humanitarian, humanity, humans, hurt, imparted upon, impose upon, indescribable, ineffable, inhumane, injustice, internationally, interpret, interpretations, judge, justice, justified, laymen, length, liking, love, mass, measures, merciful, mercy, modernization, moral, nationally, near-sighted, necessities, Neti, neutral, non-believers, Nota Bene, person, Philosophy, physics, poor, practice, practicing, preaching, preference, preferences, promote, race, realistic, relative, religion, religious practices, rich, rival, science, Scientists, sexual orientation, Shad Darshan, spirituality, standard, subject, subjectively, sun, testing, time, tolerant, triple standards, trust, Truth, truthful, understanding, universally, unjustified, Upanishad, veridical, volume, wealth, will, worry
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Nota Bene II | Comments Closed