Hi,
Welcome to my blog. For some time, a lot of people asked me if I wanted to create a blog. I never did want to because I never really had a theme. Writing about your own life? Well, you have thousands of 'life stories', and everyone loves writing about themselves, perhaps much more than others woud like reading about them. So I wanted a theme, rather than to write about myself alone. Now I feel I have a theme.
Before you read on, let me let you know that this blog is about spiritual realization and Hare Krishna. If you are not interested perhaps this is the time to leave. Else, please read on.
I had a few basic questions ever since the age of five. I used to ask myself, why we are here. Why as a kid, do I aspire to be an adult? Would I as an adult be happy? And then after we came back from holidays and vacations I used to feel sad, and then feel happy after a few days...then I used to think that happiness really is context dependent, and not on dependent on the "object of happiness" itself. As a young kid, no one really listens to you, so I kept my thoughts to myself. Thoughts like all ignored thoughts faded away in due course of time, as I grew up. However, they were revisited when, at 15, I went to the Chinmaya International Residential School, a school with spiritual education. There I got my first introduction to Indian Philosophy as well as complete answers to questions I had had a long time ago. I loved these classes. During my university years I completely drifted off from the spiritual mindset, and felt that perhaps I just had been "infatuated" with the idea of spirituality erstwhile, and ignored the idea for a while. But four years taught me, that sprituality really makes sense, and at times when I am down, spirituality is the only thing that makes sense.
In my fourth year I seeked spirituality. However, it didnt come to me because of any 'search'. I devotee fellow-classmate that I had known even before started meeting me for lunch. We became much better friends, and I was introduced by him, to Hare Krishna. Hare Krishna philosophy is at loggerheads with the Chinmaya "mayavaadi" philosophy, and so I had huge problems accepting the HKs. We had a lot of debates, and arguments regarding this, and slowly, I came to accept, and then be completely convinced of the HK philosophy. It came gradually.
Once I accepted this philosophy, my interest picked on the pace. I started reading more, getting more interested...and finally started to realize that the spirituality, or more specifically, as in HK terms, devotional service is more than just a nice thing to do...
...It is the purpose of existence.
What made me feel this way? How did I come to these conclusions? These are the topics I'll talk on, in this blog.
Any comments, ideas, and questions can be directed to my email: hakrlax@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
hi, great someone started a "good" blog. I have some, if not many, doubts. Shall I leave them here or on gmail?
Glad you liked the blog. If you leave the questions here, it would be viewable to everyone. In the inbox I can see it... so it is upto you.
No problem if everybody sees, in fact, I would like as many responses as possible.
Before asking anything, I would like to tell that I am not arguing or making a point, just "am asking".
What do u think of Atheism and God?
Atheism is an interesting topic, and I wanted to make a posting on it. Even if you argue for atheism, even for the sake of argument, I wouldnt mind at all. In fact I would be happier talking, as it helps consolidate my own views further.
I do not agree with atheism. I wouldnt go as far as to criticize atheists or say they would go to hell... or do anything stupidly radical but I dont think it is the groovy intellectual and scientific school that it poses to be.
Before stating anything I would like to make clear the difference between atheism and agnosticism ie. denial of God's existence, and a dont-know approach. The main argument for atheists, as I have seen in the Atheism website and heard from atheist friends, is that they dont want to believe what they have not seen, and dont want to believe anything that is not 'scientific'. To which I would say that a lot of phenomena in this world havent been directly seen, but are being believed in nevertheless. You cannot deny the existence of another galaxy just because people havent devised the means to see it. As for being scientific, we graduate students are perhaps most aware ofthe shortcomings of science. Theories which have been held up with a lot of enthusiasm are being disproven very quickly and replaced soon enough. So for a person to put a 100% faith in scientific theories is not exceedingly smart... Another thing on scientific theories... the planets and interplanetary distances have been accounted for in the Indian scriptures. They seemed to have known a long time ago that the earth was round and had seven islands or continents, long before Columbus, etc. was even born.
So this comes to the point that being unable to see something directly is not a proof that something doesnt exist. Neither is seeing something proof that it does exist. Therefore I am not for atheism, the denial of God, but I have a more neutral view of agnostics.
I guess no one can directly 'see' God. However, there are a lot of people from all religions claiming that they can 'feel' God, are convinced with his existence. Our own scriptures say that with our imperfect senses, we are unable to perceive God, but if we are open, we would eventually be able to perceive God.
In conclusion my view is this: I am not for atheism. As for agnosticism, I do agree with anyone if they dont want to be convinced of God on the basis of others' words, social traditions, etc... after all anyone could have been wrong. I would say though that if people are open enough they may be able to perceive God, and then be convinced of his existence.
Sorry for delay.
Which God do you beleive in? I mean who, in your view, is God?
I have an interesting question, if computers have consciousness, Aren't we "Gods" for them? still, we are no where near perfect, in the traditional sense we define GOD.
I woukd like to post more but am holding till I hear about your definition of God or the GOD you believe in.............
As for myself, I wouldnt come up with my own definition for God, as I believe, that if God does truly exist, he must be immutable no matter who people think he is. I would endeavour to seek out and discover the truth about God, than go for something that sounds good, or merely matches my preconceived notions. I would hence suscribe to the conventional view...
God as I see it, has been called different names, Krishna, Jesus, Allah, and so on. As I was born a Hindu, I suscribe to calling him Krishna or Rama... if I were born Christian, I would go to church. Personally I feel this doesnt make a difference as the person is one nevertheless. I do believe though, that God is a single person, he created everything, and maintains it by his vehicles. (I suscribed to a different view previously.. and would be willing to answer any views on this belief.)
As for the computer, I would want to point out a difference between the computer and us. The hardware for the computer is devised using minerals from the earth, such as metals, etc. The idea and brainwork... I recently read a few papers on idea generation. Ideas are produced as a result of a useful recombination of old things that we already know. So in essence, in 'creating' a computer, we are only 'modifying' things that are already given to us. So in control theory this means we are 'transfer functions' which take in the input, and provide many interesting outputs. We have seen how dumb machines capable of transfer functions are... henceforth, even we are not perfect. As for God, according to definitions, he created everything without having anything to work with previously, since he had to create everything from scratch. Any comments or views on this would be welcome.
Well, well, well regarding the computer, you said we are just changing the existing things or things given to us, then what are we?
The Basic building block DNA has only four class of bases in it(A-T and G-C, adenine, guanine, thymine, cytosine),it synthesizes the proteins(which are all a recombiantion of amino acids 23 in number) according to the gene firing, on and on to the complex organism. MUTATIONS let the gene pool continue, altering and adapting it according to the requirement.
Aren't we, too, are the modifications of what exists in nature?
BASES and ACIDS interacting. I know the interacitons are more complex than they appear but the thing remains, the wonder is unravelled.
Where does GOD fit into it?
If GOD created us, what about evolution theory?
Science cannot explain everything, that doesn't prove that what it doesn't explain doesn't exist. Still, it makes no sense in saying since science cannot explain it,it is God's work. My teacher used to say, to prove that a person is good, we don't start by saying since he he is bad he is not good.
As for the religions, except Hinduism and JUDAISM every other religion was started after "somebody". So, they are no different from "HERO WORSHIPS". As for Hindu religion, its next in queue for extinction after Lions. Judaism the other mother( or father) religion, is currently in crisis, scattered around and in war.
So, religions are our creations and are as imperfect as any other artificial thing.So, waiting for your reply........
And Madame one thing, watchout when you say "he" about god, feminists will crave your blood.
Hi everyone,
I would like to share my views on this topic – who is God?
**pls note that:
1) I would use the noun “he” to refer to God only for simplicity purpose…not referring to any gender.
2) In this article I have assumed that God exist, and I am simply addressing the question “who is God…if ever there is one?”
Firstly, I would like to comment on the computer analogy. If a computer would try to analyze who is God, very likely it would conclude that we human - who created the computer is God. And we know this cannot be true becoz we are not God. Therefore it is essential to understand that God cannot be realized by speculation/analysis. Such analysis would generally lead to improper/misleading conclusions.
If we think of it, (if ever God exist) then the best option would be for God himself to reveal to us who He is. In other words God is known by revelation and not otherwise.
The next natural question would be to whom and why should God reveal Himself? The only requirement to know God is “sincere seeking”. Think again…if god (an all knowing supremely conscious being) really exist, isn’t it natural for him to reveal himself to one who sincerely want to know who he is? Why would God cheat someone who wants to him? One who wants good will never be overcome by evil.
But again we have to be very careful with the term: “sincere seeking”. When one is seeking for the truth he has be open to any new ideas. One should not be attached to his/her preconceived views of god. Normally many of us have some socio-traditional or speculative view of God. God should be this/that…or so on. Firstly, we should remove all these biased thoughts and sincerely pray to the “unknown Supreme”. We also should not go to the other extreme of blind following. In other words we should neither reject something simply becoz it doesn’t appeal to us, nor accept something simply becoz it appeals our preferences. TRUTH doest not necessarily be appealing to everyone. Sincerity is measured by: how much we are not looking for something that we want, rather how much we are looking for the real “truth”.
Biased and insincere search (though it may be very subtly), will surely result in biased understanding of the “truth”.
Dear Harihara, if u really wants to know who is God, please continues to seek unbiasly and sincerely. If you are interested I would be happy to share my personal experience too.
Dude, some thoughts. The great evolution theory corroborates that believers of this theory originated from monkeys.
Simultaneous creation & 'existence' of many species makes more sense, than evolving one after another for funny reasons.
Just wondering, before we extinct all religions (by our comments), what was their real purpose & are they still relevant?
Scientific theories keeps on changing but not scripture's teachings. So human-created imperfect stuff needs frequent modifications. But perfect absolute principles should be from Perfect personality.
Science can only help to partially manipulate with God's creations, but not necessarily it's explanations about how it manipulates has to be correct each time. There might be different phenomenon but end result is same.
(And as computers have no consciousness, we are definitely not GOD :)
Also, after marveling over super intelligent structures & designs in cosmos, right from microscopic to macroscopic level, I'm sure that Supreme God must be 'He' :)
Hi all,
Here I would like to share “why I think God exist”?
Quoting from previous comment:
“The Basic building block DNA has only four class of bases in it(A-T and G-C, adenine, guanine, thymine, cytosine),it synthesizes the proteins(which are all a recombiantion of amino acids 23 in number) according to the gene firing, on and on to the complex organism. MUTATIONS let the gene pool continue, altering and adapting it according to the requirement.
Aren't we, too, are the modifications of what exists in nature?
BASES and ACIDS interacting. I know the interacitons are more complex than they appear but the thing remains, the wonder is unraveled.
Where does GOD fit into it?”
Thanks for the nice analysis. Firstly I would like to show that GOD can/at least may fit into the entire description as follow:
a) God can be the source of energy that creates the basic elements (particles that creates the bases) such that they come into existence.
b) God can be the one who programmed the nature to function in particular way – the programmer of code for synthesis/ mutation/ alteration/ adoption/ chemical interaction and so on.
I think it is reasonable to say that God may fit into the picture.
Please think of the following scenario:
An extremely intelligent person, who has NO any prior knowledge about computer is given a computer and asked to analyse how the computer functions. He used all his intelligence and able understand exactly how the hardware and software works. He may even understand the functioning of every single basic components/transistors and reproduce the entire source code that causes the “interaction” between the components.
Finally he concludes that computer works due to the basic hardware and programming codes that makes the hardware to function accordingly.
Now he is satisfied, and claims that
“the wonder is unraveled. Where does the HARDWARE/SOFTWARE ENGINEERS fit into it?”
Is this a correct conclusion? Please think again about it. Isn’t this similar to what you are claiming. Simply becoz we can identity the basic components and the interaction process between them…does it necessarily excludes the existence of a conscious being who creates and programs the functioning?
An eastern philosopher have mentioned: “When we see wonderful things happening in the cosmic nature, we should know that behind this cosmic manifestation there is a controller. Nothing could be manifested without being controlled. It is childish not to consider the controller. For instance, a child may think that an automobile is quite wonderful to be able to run without a horse or other animal pulling it, but a sane man knows the nature of the automobile's engineering arrangement. He always knows that behind the machinery there is a man, a driver. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the driver under whose direction everything is working.”
Please think carefully and see.
Is there any example of known “stuff” that definetly work without controller? There is none.
Is there any example of known “stuff” that definetely work with controller? Yes, almost everything we encounter in our daily life is controlled by someone –atleast animal. Then, why should we conclude that nature works without controller, simply because the controller is hidden. What is a more natural conclusion – with or without controller?
Please consider all these points unbiasly. Thank you.
Good points mate, but u got everything wrong. You are starting by a priori assumption that there exists a GOD.
That is the reason I asked to define or tell who is your is GOD?
Moreover, you know we made computers so u r concluding to ignore Software engineer, but the whole point is to prove god and u take it for granted?
Now, have u ever seen a thing without being controlled? never. YES NEVER. Then what controlls GOD? ....ad infinitum(by the way this is one of the main proofs for God's existence)
Sandeep bhaiyya, first I would recommend you to read any book on evolution before talking lightly of it.Evolution is more than a monkey's story, and we self-assured humans are not its culmination nor have any uniqueness in it.
If God exists why should God be a HE or SHE? We are conceiving him in the genders known to us.
And mate, (RAJAHARI, i think) please tell me how u realize ur GOD.
PS: I really like talking to u guys. By the way I am an MS student in UC, are u too?
Hi all, and thanks for your comments.
As for your bit on a priori assumption, no one needs to assume anything. You are correct about your teacher saying that the fact science doesnt prove everything doesnt conclude automatically that there is God. However, it does open the possibility of there being God.
As for transfer functions, there may be tons of levels of transfer functions, in the middle, which doesnt necessarily eradicate the existence of a God, who I would define as someone on the top of the food chain, the 'ad infinitum' that created everything.
Your theories on the religions going extant, this is merely an opinion, and dont prove anything either. They are not an appropriate basis for saying that these religions are 'wrong'. As for 'hero worship', these prophets didnt ask people to worship THEM, they pointed to a higher power. People have a natural reverence and gratefulness due to this. You may assume that it is an artificial manifestation, I say they were able to see something you werent. They explained to the common mass that they saw, and religions came up. This is my opinion once again, and cannot be proven just as much as your claim that religions are artificial...
My view is this: as much as the inadequacies of science do not prove the existence of a God, they dont eradicate the possibility of one. So we are in the point of saying God may exist, he may not.
As you pointed out, if we go on in the chain of "controllers" we would go on and on, and it is mind boggling to understand who is at the top of it all. Perhaps at a higher level things dont work the way they do at our level. I wouldnt trust mere logical faculties, which are limited, to extrapolate and solve this problem.
Here I would like to point out Brajahari's comment... if truly God does exist, and God wants to, he would reveal himself to us. Hence, no amount of arguing out here would establish that God exists. If he truly does, you would know due to logic in another incomprehendible dimension, which you would not be able to fathom now. If he doesnt, of course, you just have to bank on other theories. As for he or she, as pointed out earlier, it is just a manner of talking for simplicity.
As for myself I came to my beliefs due to personal experiences and in retrospect, it all made sense.
Religions ARE artificial; artificial is anything man-made. AS for u saying 'the makers of religion didn't ask anyone to follow them, yes but you are talking more in the terms of Hinduism, u r neglecting the Christianity and more recent religions. Also, where is the good will that is the main ingredient of religions? If religion overcomes reason, it’s better to do away with it than to allow it to leave us the same primordial beasts we were. And, no matter how many attacks or atrocities, I assure you, religions never become extinct. But, what is the need of religion for a person who lives by the every valid tenet a religion proposes? Doesn’t a pure heart suffice? Can’t we live without a control over us? If u are good enough to relalise God, I think, u r good enough to realise u don’t need one to lead a good life. Ur turn…………
One more thing, brajahari asked me to think in an unbiased way, his post is barely that. He is arguing completely in bias of GOD and wants me to think in an unbiased way? Try something else mate.
Hi harihara,
Please look back at my posting:
1) In the first mail I DID made assumption of God’s existence. But I didn’t try to proof anything.
2) In the second mail I DID NOT make any assumption. I was simply trying to show that God may (but not necessarily) exist even within your explanation of DNA/protein. Simply answering your question "Where does GOD fit into it?". I shows clearly that God may (not necesary)fit into it.
Ok...if it was confusing, let me make clearer.
Give me your comment on this:
Identifying the basic elements and the interaction process between these elements does not proof anything about non-existence of God. God may still exist (but not necessarily) – as the creator/”programmer”.
For now I am not trying to say god have to exist. I am just establishing that there is nothing to proof there is no creator for all the basic elements/principles.
Basically, before we further continue our discuss, for now I think we can mutually agree with this point: “God MAY exist”
Hope this makes my point clearer.
Take care.
Btw, I am a Phd student from national university of Singapore. My name is Brajahari (not “rajahari”).
hi brajahari, got the point.
What I am trying to say is the creationist view of life in invalid. I will post more in a day.....
hi,
its nice that u got my point.
i am curious to know why you think creationist theory is invalid.
take care
brajahari, first please make clear who do u think GOD is............
Hi…yap.. I think I should make my concept of God clearer. I will give a short overview of my believe on God and creation. I am not going to justify or explain any of my points, rather just stating. (btw, each point has deep explanation).
Direct answer for your question:
Who is god?
1) The conscious being (living-entity) who is the source of everything.
2) Just like other living-entity, God is an individual person.
In overall there are 2 types of entities – living and non-living. Living-entity have consciousness and non-living entity do not have consciousness.
Living-entity is always the “initiator” for any activity.
Among such living-entity there is ONE who is the ultimate “initiator” of everything. This living-entity is GOD.
What GOD has to do with us? Symptom of living is active interaction. So each of us has a “relation based on love” with the God – which we have forgotten (therefore we are in miseries) and we need to revive it. This should be the real purpose of “religion”.
Btw, I am strongly against any sectarian concept of God/religion. I am too, disgusted with what’s happening in today’s religious structure with creation of new “god” and “theory” day by day. Any religion (whether theism/atheism/modern science) only create havoc if there are materially motivated.
Dear Harihara…consider the following points:
Whether theism or atheism – both try to find AN ultimate source to explain everything.
Modern scientists too for decades try to come out with theories such as TOE(theory-of-everything), MAT (mother of all theory), superstring, bigbang …so on….such they can have single concept to explain everything. Similarly, if you are familiar with other philosophies such as : atheistic sankhya, mimamsa, vaisheshika, budhism, jainism, toa… all this philosphies are athiestic (some of their conclusion is very similar to what modern science is approaching) do not believe in God…but attributes something else as the ultimate source. In atheism, nature is sometimes termed as “god”.
(btw, theory of evolution may seem to explain how “things” evolve…but does not definitely explain how everything begin).
Therefore whether theism or atheism –both believe in an ULTIMATE cause. The only different is atheism believe that the ultimate source is a non-living element (such as dull particles/abstract concept/accidental event/…) whereas creationists claim that the ultimate source is a conscious-intellectual-being (creation is not accidental but intellectually planned).
When everyone agree that there is a single ULTIMATE cause for everything, why do you think that cause have to be a non-conscious “dead” matter? Why not it is a conscious “active & intelligent” living entity?
Why must creation be accidental, why not it is well planned? Which is more reasonable?
…just think of these thoughts.
-brajahari d.
Btw, can I know what course you are doing. Master by research or course-work?...take care.
hi, I am doing MS thesis in Biofluid mechanics.
"Consciousness"- Humans are the only living beings that have consciousness. So, ur definition classifies all other living things into non-living things, which is obvioulsy wrong.
Could you elaborate on "relation based on love". How it leads to miseries?
By the way science never denied god, it denied "superstitious and omniscient
god".
Also, Evolution argues the same thing, creation is not accidental. I recommend "The Ancestor's tale" which shows how the evoluiotn is impacted by the pressures of the environment. and the evoluiton of MAn from Eukaryotes an prokaryotes(it goes from humans to unicellulars)
You asked me before
"have u ever seen something working without being controlled or initiated(which concludes nothing works without being controlled".
If we derive conclusions by induction, then let me ask u have u ever seen GOD( happily concluding there is no god)?
I know both conclusions are superficial. I cited this to show that not observing something doesn't show its existence or non.
So, why can't u take it that something can be started without being initiated?
So, now if GOd is the initiator who initiated him? if u say he is the one without being initiated, why can't the other life be the same? why should he be special?
Regarding Love and God, because we feel "love" which is purely a human feeling, doesn't mean all living things feel it.
You are arguing the case of humans, what about all the other living beings and PLANTS? oh, those life supporters, they are living too, more vigorously interacting with the environment than we do.....
And evolution theory never said creation was accidental. It never said how life started. yes i agree.
So see this
For explaining life, start with:
There existed GOD and he created life with a swsih of his hand, on and on.
This leaves us wondering where are his powers and where did he get those? How he chose which things to create? why does he favour only some of his creations? Why he favours Humans and gave them consciousness? why does he allow suffering? etc
The Second view(EVOLUTION)....
There existed a primeval soup of elements(from "THE SELFISH GENE", richard dawkinS) which combined to form a cell(I will give the specifics if u want) which evolved to be the self-assured, pompous human.( who thinks he is the culmination of evolution or God's creation and is already endangering his existence by many activities and thinks in all his ignorance that he is endangering the planet and ecology).
Both cases we are taking for granted the existence of something. Which makes sense to you?
hi harihara,
excellent posting. well argued. i will explain some of the questions you have raised in few days time.
have nice time...take care.
--brajahari
>>> There existed a primeval soup of elements
which dude created that?
& All 'living beings' have consciousness, humans are one of them.
Emotions like love, fear, hatred, compassion, attraction etc exists in all species, Each may express in different ways & different degrees. We may not be able to decode that exactly but even trees too have emotions & consciousness.
Rather emotions are part of consciousness.
By the way, what is your definition or concept of Death? & what happens after death to 'us'?
sandeep, if some dude created the primeval soup who created that dude? thats what i was pointing out, amn't I?
In both cases we are taking for granted something.
Regarding CONSCIOUSNESS, its very very different from all the things u suggested(love, hatred,fear). They are all lower brain functions, courtesy evolution from primodial animals.
Its because of Consciousness that we are thinking; for a reason if our existence. Trees, by the way, don't even have a brain, but ofcourse they responf to stimuli. Rather, brain is a modification of those responses(i am not able to recollect exactly) when the plant to animal switch took place.As I told brajahari, try THE ANCESTOR"S TALE. Very interesting book.
As for concept of Death etc, i will post again. I know you are luring me into suicidal territory, still (heheheheheh).............
Well, after we die, if u r a hindu nothing remains except unburnt ash, if u r a christian they bury and since body is biodegradable it decomposes. In the end, either way nothing remains. That's it. There will no longer be anything known as "us"
Hi harihara,
I was busy last week. All the questions you raised are very essential and therefore I will try to explain (but may be complicating). In this article I am simply trying to clarify definition/concept/ and some basic questions you raised.
1) Regarding “consciousness”
a) Whenever I used the word “consciousness”, I refer to the Sanskrit term “cetana”-which literally means “life symptom”. This concept is dealt with great detail in Vedic science.
b) In Vedic science, life (plant, animal, human, microbes,…) is defined by the existence of “cetana”. The difference between living- and non-living-entity is the existence and non-existence of “life-symptom/cetana”.
c) However the “manifestation” of “life-syptom” is modulated by the environment/body – I will explain this later. In fact in vedic science “species” is defined based on the degree of manifestation of “life-symptom”(not based on who can reproduce with whom).
d) You may wonder, what is then the origin of “life-syptom”? According to Vedic science, “life-syptom” is the intrinsic property of the elementary particles known as “atma”. Therefore “life-syptom” cannot be created by chemical reaction of any molecules (refer “Life come from Life”, Dr. T.D.Singh).
e) While the body is made of normal chemicals, the “life-symptom” is due to “atma”. That is why we cannot even produced simple organism like unicellular-bacteria from purely chemicals.
2) What is death:
“Atma” is the real identity of a living-entity. The real self is the atma itself and not the body. When a living-entity dies, the body becomes disfunctional, and thus “atma” is transferred to another body (I will explain the mechanism for this process if necessary).
Atma never “dies”. It is eternal – never created and always existing.
3) “Miseries”:
God is also “atma”. There are few categories of “atma”. Typical living-entities in this world fall in the category of atma known as “jiva”.
All “atma” intrinsically has these properties:
a) eternal,
b) always happy.
(That’s why we always seek for this two- whatever we have we want it to be permanent and secure, and we try to derive happiness from whatever we have. You may argue that not all living entities bother about happiness/etc. –explained below.)
On the other hand “matter (non-living)” has the opposing nature:
a) always changing and finally decay.
b) Prone to give miseries.
To understand this, try to analyze your practical life. Whatever we have (valuable object/ knowledge/ RELATIONSHIPS/ our body) tend to change in time, and if we don’t maintain them we GREAT care they will degrade and as a result they produce miseries.
Ok..if we are “atma”- which is intrisically happy – why we ever suffer? One of the specific characteristic of “jiva” (typical living-entity category of “atma”) is adaptability or ability to be conditioned/modulated by environment. Therefore when a living-entity is situated in a particular body/environment – it identifies itself with that body and thus adapt the nature of that body (which is ever changing and miserable). In different species of life – the degree of identification and conditioning differs. That’s why animals exhibit lesser symptom of “atma/consciousness” and plants exhibits almost no symptom of “consciousness”.
Simple analogy: if we put a fish out of water, it will struggle for existence no matter how much other facilities you provide. Similar, if we(“atma”) are in an environment/body which is made of matter we have to struggle for our existence no matter how opulent we are.(refers the article “practicality of spiritually” by “devotee aspirant” for more practical details).
4)Relationship with God
One of the major differences between god and jiva – jiva is modulated/conditioned by environment, god is not conditioned. Other than that jiva’s nature is similar to god’s nature (both are atma). Therefore when a jiva is attached to god, he is situated in his natural position (like fish being inside water) and thus he can be naturally happy in contrast to getting attach to matter and become miserable.
What is “relationhip based on love”? This is a very elobrate/complex subject matter – maybe the words I used is improper(Sanskrit term is “prema”). I will try to explain briefly. This relationship cannot be compared to any of the humanly feeling. Humanly feelings are actually: “prema highly modulated by matter (hormones/emotions/ect)”. “Prema” refers to interaction in which one is completely UNmotivated to derive pleasure for oneself –rather only concern on how to please the other. “Prema” is an pure interaction between atma - not matter. When a living-entity becomes completely detached from matter and absolutely attached to God, he will start to exhibit “prema”. Every living entity has particular “mode of prema with god”.(if u want the details I can introduce some books). “Prema” is also highly dynamic and is eternally “exciting”. THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS TO ATTAIN THIS.
If you feel I am confusing you, you may try to read this article:
http://www.vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en
Now regarding creation, it is not that god created with a swish…rather it is much more scientific. I will try to explain that too.
Vedic creation:
Three thing existed eternally – god (isvara), other living-entity(jiva) and material nature (prakrti). Before creation of particular universe, nature existed in an unmanifested form known as “pradhana”. Creation begins when “pradhana” is injected with another additional element – time (kala). The nature of time is to causes transformation/agitation. With time pradhana is transformed into “mahattatva” and slowly one by one material elements/energy start to manifest. The details of this is elobrated in Bhagavad Purana.
This description seems to very close to the modern physics. Now you may wonder, where is god in this picture? Besides the physics of creation Bhagavad Purana also deals with the history of creation:
“God in his 1st creative feature (first purusa), injects the time element into pradhana (there is a particular mechanism for this). Then he assumes his second creative feature (second purusa), and enters into each universe. From there he gives birth(asexual) to the first living entity in that universe(known as brahma). This living-entity is from the jiva category. This living-entity is further given in the knowledge of material physics and creation. He (brahma) latter starts engineering the universe. He also has a unique reproduction system where he can asexually reproduce different species from different part of his body. In this way, different species of live was produced parallelly. One of the group of living-entities he reproduced in known as “devatas”. Devata are also highly educated in this knowledge and they assist Brahma in engineering/administrating universal affairs – by specializing in particular department. (God also assume his third creative feature for other finer maintenance).”
(you may refer: Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by Dr. Richard L.Thompson)
Harihara, modern science may explore the physics of creation to some extent, but history can never be explained through logic and physics. For example, science can explain theory of relativity but science cannot explain why Einstein is the founder of this theory. For history we have to refer historical evidence. The primary historical evidence is written document. Vedic literatures have recorded these events. There are many different literatures giving consistent explanation.
But if u think vedic histories are mythologies, I can show you convincingly the validity of Vedic Literature…if u are interested.
Take care.
Btw: u told theory of evolution doesn’t happen by chance. Isn’t mutations and genetic drift happen randomly and by chance?(while other mechanism such as natural selection may be due to environmental pressure.) Anyway when I used the word by chance I refer mainly to “big-bang theory”. In fact, Hiesenberg Theory of Uncertainty also claims uncertainity/randomsness as an intrinsic property of nature. Einsten disagreed with this theory (claiming there is some hidden variable) but Eisten was later proven to be wrong.
just note: there are TWO previous postings from me.
Dude, I am postind in order to ur reponse.
CONCSCIOUSNESS:
Starting with "chetana", the exact sanskrit meaning as u said is LIFE SYMPTOM. But, Consciousness is not Chetana.
BTW I never talked about we producing anything.
DEATH
Regarding ATMA, another thing u take granted for beng in existence, how come it is coping up with the POPULATION explosion ? Where are the extras coming from?
Regarding Miseries. it's not valid to say that all people feel it. I have many problems(I am using problem to give u a specific meaning). But, I never considered I them as problems. I am not getting good grades, but i am not feeling it as a misery or problem. I am neglecting them, so obviously I will get bad grades. So, define MISERY.
Regarding analogy, why the heck in the first place should then atma be put in a matter? Is that some kind of sick joke? If God knows that we suffer, why is he letting us? I know what you will say, KARMA, right? The KARMA PHALITA of previous life. Now, read this carefully. GOD created a first generation, why did they do wrong doings if they are supervised by GOD?
If they haven't why the subequent miseries?
All through u were saying things existed eternally, aand u accuse science of not explaining who created the first thing? Come on, u can take for granted that somethings are eternal and u don't allow science the liberty?
UNFAIR.
Also, why, if u are criticising science of many pitfalls and shortcomings, are u trying to explain everything scientifically? MAterial physics, Engineering are all modern terms.
Mutation and genetic drift are chance. I agree. But, accident and Chance are different. I said its not an accident. Mutation arises due to prolonged detrimental factors. Survival of Mutational genes depends on the suitability.
Science is not abstract, its people. Why did Einstein discover THEORY of RELATIVITY? Well, then answer this WHY DID GOD CREATE EVERYTHING? You will say he was destined or something , just interpret ur answer to the question u asked of me.
I don't know where u got the HEISENBERG thing. He said uncertaintity, not randomness. Also it is regarding atomic and subatomic particles, the uncertainity vanishes for sizeable particles.I know Einstein disagreed, but it goes deeper. Some aspects are proven wrong some are not.
What is present and past? And what if HISTORY?
Another question: For history u need to refer to ancient writings, consult bible, it says a very different story? why? likewise TALMUD etc.
PS. Einstein being wrong or right, why did it come into the discussion?
Hi,
1) When I used the word “conciousness” in all my previous articles, I refer to “life-symptom”. This definition of consciousness =life-symptom is a common definition. A word may be defines differently in different field. That’s why I made clear of my definition. Therefore from this definition –all living entity has consciousness.
2) Regarding atma I am not taking anything for granted. Pupolation explostion…just think for urself and u will get the answer… No extra atma. Population explosion only refer to human population. Within a small space there may be millions of microbes…all of them has atma. Basically when atma from different species become human, it seem to be population explosion…doesnt mean number of atma increase.
3) Misery – death, old age, disease…who can avoid? We are used to sufferings that we take it as a part of our life. Pls try to practice spirituality and u will see what is real happiness! Then only you can compare how miserable is life without spirituality.
4) Why atma is put into matter? IT IS NOT DUE TO KARMA. How can there be karma before beginning of activity? You are trying to make the sick joke…not me. If I didn’t explain the reason…doesnt mean there is no reason.
5) “Science is not abstract, its people. Why did Einstein discover THEORY of RELATIVITY? Well, then answer this WHY DID GOD CREATE EVERYTHING? You will say he was destined or something , just interpret ur answer to the question u asked of me.”
I don’t understand why you are telling. I never asked you “Why did Einstein discover THEORY of RELATIVITY?” I simply told that historical events are not proven by logic and physics.
As for why GOD create everything? I CAN answer this question if u are really interested to know. God is not destined to do anything.
6) Uncertainity, randomness, accident. Uncertainity is deviation from a particular value. Deviations are described by probability distribution. Such events are called random. Accidents only happen when there is randomness. When something is certain we don’t call it accident.
7) “All through u were saying things existed eternally, and u accuses science of not explaining who created the first thing? Come on, u can take for granted that somethings are eternal and u don't allow science the liberty?
UNFAIR.”
I have already explained this. All theories accept something to be the ultimate cause…I am not denying it. On other hand, if modern science can have this liberty…why not vedic science? Even, theory of Bigbang was based on 3 unproven postulates and still not yet proven.
8) “Also, why, if u are criticising science of many pitfalls and shortcomings, are u trying to explain everything scientifically? MAterial physics, Engineering are all modern terms.”
I am not critising science. I am just telling that modern science have pitfall and not as scientific as vedic science. Material physics and engineering are not modern term. There are entire branch is vedic study which analyses the nature of materials.
Hi,
1) When I used the word “conciousness” in all my previous articles, I refer to “life-symptom”. This definition of consciousness =life-symptom is a common definition. A word may be defines differently in different field. That’s why I made clear of my definition. Therefore from this definition –all living entity has consciousness.
2) Regarding atma I am not taking anything for granted. Pupolation explostion…just think for urself and u will get the answer… No extra atma. Population explosion only refer to human population. Within a small space there may be millions of microbes…all of them has atma. Basically when atma from different species become human, it seem to be population explosion…doesnt mean number of atma increase.
3) Misery – death, old age, disease…who can avoid? We are used to sufferings that we take it as a part of our life. Pls try to practice spirituality and u will see what is real happiness! Then only you can compare how miserable is life without spirituality.
4) Why atma is put into matter? IT IS NOT DUE TO KARMA. How can there be karma before beginning of activity? You are trying to make the sick joke…not me. If I didn’t explain the reason…doesnt mean there is no reason.
5) “Science is not abstract, its people. Why did Einstein discover THEORY of RELATIVITY? Well, then answer this WHY DID GOD CREATE EVERYTHING? You will say he was destined or something , just interpret ur answer to the question u asked of me.”
I don’t understand why you are telling. I never asked you “Why did Einstein discover THEORY of RELATIVITY?” I simply told that historical events are not proven by logic and physics.
As for why GOD create everything? I CAN answer this question if u are really interested to know. God is not destined to do anything.
6) Uncertainity, randomness, accident. Uncertainity is deviation from a particular value. Deviations are described by probability distribution. Such events are called random. Accidents only happen when there is randomness. When something is certain we don’t call it accident.
7) “All through u were saying things existed eternally, and u accuses science of not explaining who created the first thing? Come on, u can take for granted that somethings are eternal and u don't allow science the liberty?
UNFAIR.”
I have already explained this. All theories accept something to be the ultimate cause…I am not denying it. On other hand, if modern science can have this liberty…why not vedic science? Even, theory of Bigbang was based on 3 unproven postulates and still not yet proven.
8) “Also, why, if u are criticising science of many pitfalls and shortcomings, are u trying to explain everything scientifically? MAterial physics, Engineering are all modern terms.”
I am not critising science. I am just telling that modern science have pitfall and not as scientific as vedic science. Material physics and engineering are not modern term. There are entire branch is vedic study which analyses the nature of materials.
hi,
try to answer this question.
How would you define "living-entity"?
What is the different between life and death body?
ok, its not getting us anywhere. one straight question---- why should there be suffering? why should all the good things be attributed to god and wrongs to evil?
I am sorry i haven't said this before. i am NOT an atheist and i believe in god, as for all vedic explanations I have been hearind them( my good fortune
) from class 5. I respect them as much as I do science. But I don't conform to one, I am not supporting science, but my view is that religion is being carried to the point of insanity in modern world. Sincere believers are being ridiculed as a result. What matters is not what u believe, its what ur resultant choices are that matter.
If I sounded sarcastic in any of the postings, I apologise.(I am not terminating just taking a break) I will post again, Godspeed brajahari
Hi,
Sorry too if I have sounded sarcastic.
Before I answer ur question of suffering just consider this point.
As for now we can see that both science and Vedas are presenting different models to explain the truth. In any model there are pastulates/axiom/ assumptions. We cannot reject a model simply becoz of this as long as such assumptions are reasonable and self consistent within the model.
As for me, (personal view) I find vedic model is not only highly consistent but able to explain everything. However modern science, while may be consistent, is unable to answer many basic things (regarding our purpose of existance/suffering/ect.).
Now, coming back to your question, why we suffer?
As explained before we suffer becoz we are not in our “natural position”(already explained the details). Why should god put us in this situation?
Ok…god didn’t put us in this situation. Rather we choose to be in the present situation. Since we were ignorant about the real nature of ourselves and we choose to enjoy independent from god. When we have such desire god fulfill it. So this world (material world) is manifested, so that any “jiva” who wants to enjoy independently can attempt so.
Now the possible question is: why should god be cruel and fulfill our perverted desires ?
For the ignorant “jiva”, material world is more like a reformatory/educational centre. Here we eventually learn by experience – learn from the mistakes. everytime we plan to enjoy, misery comes togheter..frustration…failure. By this way one may eventually start to question his existence, find out the ultimate cause for his suffering and seek for the solution. Besides that, God also provides guidance in terms of knowledge, sending messenger, “inner guidance/intelligence” or sometimes he incarnates himself, etc.
If u wonder: if god is sooo powerful, why cant he just force the knowledge and realization unto us, rather then making us to learn in hardway?
This is becoz our relation with god is based on love(prema). “Love” should come voluntarily, with strong and intense desire for the other. “love” cannot be forced. So god wants us to love him purely out of our own will…not forcing us by using his extraordanry powers! Such act may make us obedient follower of God…but not a “loving associate”.
Harihara…all this are my understanding based on vedic scriptures. U may disagree. Thanks.
Thats what I am saying, i never refuted what u were saying, I pointed out what I found was inconsistent. Anyway, as I said, it doesn't matter and leading us nowhere.
Forgot to tell this
Evolution has been proved, maybe not the Genesis but thereafter. No point refuting evolution.
why will God look us after only if we pray to him or realise him?
i will reply soon, take care
Hi,
“why will God look us after only if we pray to him or realise him?”
Actually God look after everyone. There are many successful atheists. God never stop oxygen supply to one blaspheme him. God never discriminate, rather he supplies and maintains everyone as much as they “desire” and “deserve” according to their own action. In “material” life often people are awarded according to their own activities and endeavors (law of karma)-meritocracy. This we can see in our practical life. This shows that God is unbias. Even animals are provided with their daily needs even if they never pray to God.
However, as explained before the real solution for all miseries is when we are situated in our natural position(note: this is a liberated position where there is no more law of karma). God, being always unbiasly loving to everyone, helps everyone to achieve this position in many way. For example:
a) the creation of the material world is meant for this purpose - make us realize that matter never provide happiness.
b) God incarnates regularly to reestablish the real knowledge/teaching.
c) He provides teaching/knowledge…in terms of scriptures
d) He send his messengers regularly to teach us.
e) …(many other way)
…. and note that all this are done for those who are not praying to him. Only thing that
God doesn’t do is – He never force anyone. He respects everyone’s free will and independence. If one wants to remain in material clutches he provides them with proper facilities. If one wants to get rid of material entanglement, then he help them for that too. In both case, he is untiringly giving us the knowledge, so that we can deliberate ourself and make the decision.
In a more graphical way, God’s mercy is equally distributed to everyone. It’s upto the us to accept it or reject it. Even if we reject he don’t neglect us…he still try to help us indirectly.
Imagine we are drowning in the sea…god is always providing His helping hand, its upto us to hold it or reject it…even if we reject God don’t neglect us…he waits patiently and guide us slowly so that we will accept his hand. God never give up on anyone. He will eventually help everyone.
btw, this question is raised many times in scriptures. Many analogies and details are given on Gods equality to all living entity.
(If I am not answering your question, probably becoz I am not getting exactly ur doubts…since the focus of the question may vary widely…I dont want to explore all the possibilities here. Pls specify if I am diverging, thankyou).
Just one more point. In vedic spiritual sense, especially in vaishnava tradition, “praying to god” DOESN’T mean begging to someone to keep us happy. Rather it’s more to simply making God a part of our life. The focus of the process is more in developing loving relationship…and NOT for our daily maintenance…as god maintains everyone(pray or not).
take care
sorry it took me long.
God never stop oxygen supply to one blaspheme him
Now that sentence, well, do u think God is upplying oxygen? Is God a person in ur view? (I am not asking doubts but clarifications)
And from this tome i will put one question at a time, lest it cover wide areas
Why some animals are extinct? Why the unbiased god wiped them off?
God has the ability to control the nature. Therefore if he wants he can interfere into any natural process (and thus stop the intake of oxygen or anything similar)... However God never do so unnecessarily.
Am I referring to God who is a person/ “impersonal”? I think it was quite obvious from the previous postings, that I was referring to PERSONAL God. God is ultimately a person, yet he has his impersonal feature too (this is a deep subject by itself). However, I would like to emphasize that God is not an ordinary person like what we conceive in our daily life. His personality is something “transcendental”. We also remain a person in our “liberated position”…not an ordinary person, but “transcendental”(Unless if we desire otherwise where we would merge into His impersonal feature). And the universe where God and the liberated persons reside is also “transcendental”. By the word “transcendental, I refer to something completely different from our daily/regular experience.
Species extinction: As I have explained earlier, the real self is the atma, not the particular body/species. So, extinction of species does not imply that God is bias to anyone. It simply shows that all the souls (atma) in that particular species have now obtain body of different species. God is still equally loving and caring to that atma. There is no question of biasness.
Btw, just a minor point: our earth is just a spect of dust in the entire universe. Therefore extinction/explosion of a particular species in earth does not really mean anything. There MAY be a population explosion of a particular species (which extinct in earth) in some other unknown part of the universe.
(In any case, even if u disagrees with this, whether extinct or not, it has nothing to do with biasness of God.)
Dear harihara, just a simple request. I really appreciate your questions. Sometimes, a little bit of practical experience can be much more effective than a lot of theoretical discussions. If you don’t mind I can recommend you some simple spiritual practice that would hardly need a sacrifice of 10 or 15 minutes per day. Just try sincerely for few days and see the result for yourself.
Meanwhile, let’s continue with our discussions….
Take care…
Just want to share the following points about Vedic civilization compare to modern scientific development.
Some example (I am quoting directly from scripture which were dated around 3000 B.C.):
a) Atomic Theory
“The material manifestation's ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed into a body, is called the “parama-anu”. It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms. The material body is but a combination of such particles, but it is misunderstood by the common man. They are the ultimate state of the manifest universe. When they stay in their own forms without forming different bodies, they are called the unlimited oneness. There are certainly different bodies in physical forms, but the particles themselves form the complete manifestation. One can estimate time by measuring the movement of the atomic combination…”
Bhagavad Purana 3.11 [Calculation of Time from Atom] http://www.vedabase.net/sb/3/11/en
Remark: The idea of atom/fundamental particles was first accepted as scientific in 1803 (John Dalton)…almost 5 millennium after this scripture!
b)The world was surprise with amazement when Einstein proposes theory of relativity(TOR)-1905. But this theory is very common to any regular Vedic student. It is accepted as a matter of fact in Vedic literatures/Puranas. This is one of the reasons why Puranas are often considered myth by common public – it requires a genius like Einstein to recognize and understand such a theory.
c) Genetic science
Genetic scientists were struggling for centuries to determine the most basic of our human origin – how our body is formed in womb.
Vedic: “The Personality of Godhead said: Under the supervision of the Supreme Lord and according to the result of his work, the living entity, the soul, is made to enter into the womb of a woman through the particle of male semen to assume a particular type of body. On the first night, the sperm and ovum mix, and on the fifth night the mixture ferments into a bubble…”
Bhagavad Purana 3.31.1 [Lord Kapila's Instructions on the Movements of the Living Entities]
http://www.vedabase.net/sb/3/31/en
Remark: Only in 1843-The fact that human conception occurs when the sperm enters the ovum is discovered by physician Martin Berry! and changed the way the world sees human reproduction. Before people used to believe that the male implants life into the female.
d) World map was discovered in 16th/17th centuries only. In Mahabharata how our earth looks from moon is explains – and with some intelligent interpretation it is exactly the modern map! [Sorry, can’t get the exact reference right now].
e) Definitions: Vedas also has a very precise definition. For millennium non of the definitions and models were changed...and they fit the purpose very well. However, modern science is not like that. Very often we find the previous definition is no more valid. Just last year “planet” was redefined. “Species” is defined in science with sooo many exception (remember studying about this in one of my bio module). “Living entity” is only described and not defined in science. However, all these are precisely defined in vedic science.
And there are many more things. But we can see the pattern; modern science is eventually approaching Vedic science. Modern science is still in a stage under research, whereas Vedic science is matured & conclusive. The final answer in modern science is always “under research” but not so for Vedas.
Btw, I am not against modern science. I am too a science student – and science was always my favorite. My approach is that I accept science till the extend it doesn’t contradict with Vedas. If it does, then I accept science as an approximate useful model. Factually speaking this is how science is viewed… as model within a given constrain. For example, Einstein has proven Newtons Laws to be inaccurate (in fact false), however we still study and use Newton’s Law because it is a good and useful approximation in low energy analysis. Beyond certain range Newton’s Law fails terribly. So I believe the same is true for all scientific theories/models, they apply well within certain constrain.
Non of the vedic “models” have been proven to be wrong, yet.
Can I ask you why were you explaining the Vedic scriptures here?
I never said they were wrong.
Extinction of species doesn't mean anything? Brajahari, Would u talk like that of humans? abortion? rapes? murders? Isn't that the whole point? The very meaning of our social structure(though theoritically) is to perpetuate ourselves and live. So, extinction of humans would definitely be the best choice for GOD.
Anyway that Vedic vs Science post is good, but I don't see a point in it.
10 to 15minutes of spiritual practice, what do u mean by that?
Isn't the Hindu way of living a spiritual existence? What are the
Upanishads, Bharatam,Bhagavatam Ramayanam, Manusmruthi(and the multitude) for? Aren't they to make ur living a spiritual existence(It's a rhetoric question lest u r tempted to answer)
Aren't all they futile when u say "10 to 15 minutes of spiritual practice?
Hi,
1) I didn’t say extinction didn’t mean anything in term of miseries/suffering. I meant it has nothing to do with biasness of nature/god.
Let’s analyze your question carefully. Miseries happen individually or collectively. Of course any species (including human), who are involved in the ending tail of the extinction process will suffer, and this is a sad thing. The real problem is the suffering itself. The point I am trying to make is, extinction is another form of disaster: just like murder, rape, natural disaster, starvation, famine, war, on and on. All these are undoubtedly very sad, though the degree may differ according to individual and circumstances.
So now the actual problem is why suffer (which I have explained before)? Simply due to our own past activity we are undergoing suffering. Maybe those who caused a mass destruction of forest and caused extinction of a particular species take birth collectively in “extinct-ing” species in their future (just a highly simplified example…karma is much more complicated than this). Therefore while any disaster is a very sad thing, they are not bias or unfair. Nature always works in a PERFECTLY unbias way! (If nature “decides” human race should extinct then it would the best thing to happen, though it is the saddest thing for us.) While, punishment and award is happy and sad thing, respectively, both are fair/unbias. I can explain more on this…but I am quite sure you got the point.
Only thing we can do rite now, is try to be more responsible and help each other (welfare activity) as much as we can. Of course, the best method would be to ultimately help each other in cultivating spirituality: which has the ability to burn the karma completely…and thus bring peace and bliss.
2) About the vedic vs. science, thanks for finding it good. It has nothing to do with our current discussion. I just shared something independently.
3) About 15minutes spiritual practice: yes, Hinduism is about making entire life into spiritual consciousness. But we have to start slowly somewhere. 15 minutes is only for beginning…experiment. Just like we always try sample products…and if it is good we will want more. If the process is potent then we will naturally dedicate more and more. I want you to judge the process yourself…that’s why I told 15minutes. One thing I am confident is, even 15 minutes of very sincere commitment is sufficient to give enough strength/faith/taste/realization to continue more in spirituality. I have seen this practically.
Take care….and good luck.
Regards,
bala
Good to read blogs like this. Good job ..
Post a Comment