On Religion and Gods

[Guest guest]

Namaste Balaji,

 

Thanks for that nice, long and thoughtful message on this topic. (I

have changed the thread name slightly.)

 

>I would rather not be called a good Hindu, I would

>want to be called a person following dharma

 

Yes, this is like the Arya Samaj, who (speaking roughly) want to get

back to the wisdom of the Vedas and discard the Puranas. I think all

Advaitins would agree that spirituality, at the highest level,

consists of eternal truths that are beyond culture and applicable in

all societies on all planets in all universes.

 

However, consider this. Perhaps Buddhism disappeared from India and

Hinduism survived, because the latter made concessions to popular

forms of religious expression, such as devotion to Gods and to the

stories of the Puranas. This debate is nothing new. Buddhism

itself, in far Asia, turned Buddha into a worshipped God, at least as

far as the masses were concerned. Also, Christianity makes a similar

worshipped God out of Jesus. Islam may be said to be 'pure' in a

certain sense, though this purity sometimes takes a fearsome form!

 

>Dharma on the contrary is not any religion. It is the law of nature.

 

This is precisely why I have spoken so often in the past on the

relationship between Advaita and Buddhism (or Advaita and Taoism,

etc.). I wish to discover the underlying general laws of

consciousness that are revealed in these traditions. I believe that

such underlying laws are shown more explicitly in traditions based on

nondual realization than in devotional religions made complicated by

dogma, which are mostly artificial human construction, as I see it.

 

>I don't say that Hinduism is man-made...

 

Not the part based on nondual realization!

 

 

However, there is a much broader perspective which one may have on

the whole topic of Gods and culture-bound manifestations of religion.

This is to see them as expressions of the evolution of communal

consciousness. (I know that the word 'communal' has political

connotations in India!) When I try to make sense out of religions, I

tend to see them as the expression in form of a certain level of

consciousness of a group of people bound by some common karma. I

have no way of proving this, but it seems like a most fruitful

hypothesis.

 

In broad terms, I would say that the evolution goes from dual to

nondual. This may seem to contradict the historical record, whereby

Shankara (nondualist) precedes Ramanuja (qualified nondualist), who

in turn precedes Madhva (dualist). However, I would say that what

was really happening was that a kind of democracy was taking place in

India. In Vedic times and shortly thereafter, religion was largely

driven by spiritual elites (rishis, Buddha, Shankra), but then mass

movements arose as millions of souls started to rise to a level where

they could assert their own more dualistic and devotional views.

This is not to be seen as a regression but as progress for those who

before simply didn't count at the cultural level. Meanwhile, the

nondual elites were free to continue their spiritual explorations and

to appeal to those who had a similar interest (mostly scholars,

intellectuals, etc.). This is all normal and healthy.

 

On the other hand, one might also say that the attributes of Krishna

and Shiva are very ancient, and they were always worshipped since

very ancient days. I then wonder what the attributes of Krishna,

Shiva, etc say about the collective consciousness of those who gave

birth to these traditions. It's easy to engage in psychobabble and

invent all kinds of theories. But I am sure that there is some truth

there waiting to be discovered.

 

>Interesting, what began as a literary exercise in trying

>to tell people between the lines, what qualities were to

>be developed, has today evolved to the practice of worship

>of deities

 

Yes, what you said about Shiva undoubtedly throws some light on his

traditional qualities, having to do with meditation and a calm mind

and so forth. But was it all really as carefully thought out and

planned as all that? The qualities of Shiva arose over centuries.

Was it the work of a few minds with a plan and a message, or did it

happen more spontaneously, reflecting some kind of mysterious

patterns in the collective vasanas? This question interests me, but

I guess such a study of religion takes us far from Advaita...

 

It is a remarkable testimony to the resilience of Hinduism that some

of the most penetrating criticism of Hinduism comes from within the

fold, from people like you. This is a far cry from religions which

adopt some more or less contrived dogma, put them down on paper, and

that is that! Take it or leave it! Thoughtful people cannot accept

this.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

Thanks for the response. I was wondering if there would be any

response at all, for I was myself fearing that I may face strong

opposition, since my ideas are different from those of today's

people. Again, let our musings be restricted to understanding the

nature of these descriptions of 'God' and try to imbibe them in us,

rather than worship the deity as a 'giver of happiness'

 

After consideration, I have tried to make some deductions about the

reason for the rise of the devotional aspect of a religion. The

answer again lies in the mind of the so-called devotee, who is not

truly any devotee. In the presence of sorrow and suffering, this

person instead of analysing 'What is the cause of this suffering?'

analyses as such 'How can I do away with my suffering? Who can help

me in my troubles? Only a best friend, truly loved can.'

 

With such an affirmation, begins the concept of a 'God' who is

the 'giver of happiness'. But such a concept is entirely rooted in

ignorance and causes more sorrow and suffering. It leads to a

situation as thus: 'Why oh God, what did I do that you ruined my

business?' or 'Why have you killed my family oh God?'

 

The problem is that the very concept of God being rooted in ignorance

and incorrect cognition leads to the non-realization of one's own

faults, thus finding an easy target - God, to blame for all misery.

 

But when devotion is directed in the right path it can do wonders.

Instead of asking 'How can I do away with my suffering? Who can help

me in my troubles?' if the devotee asks 'Is there anyone who does not

suffer? How do I become like him?' he moves on the right track. That

can lead to purna perception and therefore cessation of all sorrow,

when the devotee sincerely imbibes the characteristics of his ideal.

 

While you pointed out correctly that the attributes of Shiva and

Krishna need not have arisen spontaneously and may be developed over

the years, such a discussion would call for a probe into the history

of Indian philosophy and Hinduism.

 

Please do keep responding to this.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Balaji,

>In the presence of sorrow and suffering, this

>person instead of analysing 'What is the cause

>of this suffering?' analyses as such 'How can I

>do away with my suffering? Who can help me in my

>troubles? Only a best friend, truly loved can.'

>With such an affirmation, begins the concept of a

>'God' who is the 'giver of happiness'. But such a

>concept is entirely rooted in ignorance and causes

>more sorrow and suffering . It leads to a situation

>as thus: 'Why oh God, what did I do that you ruined my

>business?' or 'Why have you killed my family oh God?'

 

 

Balaji, I quoted you at length, because you are touching on something

really fundamental. Like Chittaranji and others who have come on

recently, this list attracts some very thoughtful and articulate

people. (Some of the older people are OK too! )

 

What you say reminds me of the Book of Job in the Jewish Bible. Job

was devoted to God, yet God kept inflicting him with leprosy, poverty

and all kinds of suffering. It was to test his devotion.

 

From an intellectual point of view, the impersonal and 'scientific'

analysis of suffering of Buddha seems more mature. This may explain

why so many intellectuals have been attracted to Buddhism. But

Advaita has basically the same attitude. It speaks impersonally of

the nature of consciousness and illusion and of identification with

the unreal as the source of suffering, much like Buddhism. (Note the

difference between 'pain' and 'suffering', something Ramji can

elaborate on.)

 

Yet though this may surprise you, I cannot, from an intellectual

point of view, be entirely satisfied with a completely impersonal

Brahman. It seems to me that Brahman, being infinite consciousness,

must subsume any finite consciousness or intelligence or purpose.

For example, whatever intelligence or purpose I can detect in nature

through careful analysis, it can 'see' in less than the blink of an

eye. It knows in an instant the motion of every particle in every

universe at all times, and it has always or eternally had

instantaneous knowledge of everything there is to know. Therefore,

it seems to me that Brahman also knows of our spiritual development,

as we go through our lives. Therefore, it at least acquiesces in

this development, and in this sense our life has a 'God-sanctioned'

purpose: our spiritual development towards liberation.

 

I can only conclude that this slow and painful process of spiritual

development is necessary, due to some kind of deep 'mathematical'

reason having to do with the nature of consciousness. I realize that

such an answer may seem a bit evasive and unsatisfactory, but I think

that any notion of Brahman, or any philosophy other than atheism and

materialism, entails such a conclusion, unless you wish to postulate

a malicious Brahman, which seems like an absurdity to me. So it may

be that we must go through spiritual development, much as a seed must

slowly grow into a tree. Of course, one can always ask, 'If God or

Brahman is so powerful, why can't it just waive its hand and have the

fully grown tree immediately appear?' In other words, why can't we

be instantly enlightened? As I said, it must have to do with some

deep reason regarding the nature or 'structure' of consciousness,

which is mathematically restricted, in the same sense that '2+2=4',

and even God cannot change that.

 

You are right that rather than looking to God to give us goodies, we

should instead learn to elevate and purify our consciousness by

becoming detached from the illusion. I do believe that suffering can

be quenched in this way, and Advaitins and Buddhists both state this

as a fundamental principle.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjaminji !

 

(Some of the older people are OK too!

 

Does that include me ? a non-intellectual ?

 

well, i may be sixty but my hear is forever young ! sweet sixteen!

Shodasi ! ( the form of Indian Goddess in er ever youthful ever

blissful form. ) Smiles!

 

I know from your posts you are attracted To Jnana more than bhakti !

so, here i would like to share with you an important passage from

Bhagwan Ramana's teachings ..

 

"hough the Yogi may have his methods of breath control for his

object, the Jnani's method is only that of enquiry. When by this

method the mind is merged in the Self, the Sakti or Kundalini, which

is not apart from the Self, rises automatically.

 

The Yogis attach the highest importance to sending the Kundalini up

to the Sahasrara, the brain centre or the thousand petalled lotus.

They point out the scriptural statement that the life current enters

the body through the fontanelle and argue that, Viyoga (separation)

having come about that way, yoga (union) must also be effected in the

reverse way. Therefore, they say, we must, by yoga practice, gather

up the Pranas (vital force) and enter the fontanelle for the

consummation of yoga. The Jnanis on the other hand point out that the

yogi assumes the existence of the body and its separateness from the

Self. Only if this standpoint of separateness is adopted can the yogi

advise effort for reunion by the practice of yoga.

 

In fact the body is in the mind which has the brain for its seat.

That the brain functions by light borrowed from another source is

admitted by the yogis themselves in their fontanelle theory. The

Jnani further argues: if the light is borrowed it must come from its

native source. Go to the source direct and do not depend on borrowed

sources. That source is the Heart, the Self.

 

****Self does not come from anywhere else and enter the body through

the crown of the head. It is as it is, ever sparkling, ever steady,

unmoving and unchanging. The individual confines himself to the

limits of the changeful body or of the mind which derives its

existence from the unchanging Self. All that is necessary is to give

up this mistaken identity, and that done, the ever shining Self will

be seen to be the single non-dual reality.*****

 

If one concentrates on the Sahasrara there is no doubt that the

ecstasy of Samadhi ensues. The Vasanas, that is the latent mental

tendencies, are not however destroyed. The yogi is therefore bound to

wake up from the Samadhi because release from bondage has not yet

been accomplished. He must still try to eradicate the Vasanas

inherent in him so that they cease to disturb the peace of his

Samadhi. So he passes down from the Sahasrara to the Heart through

what is called the Jivanadi, which is only a continuation of the

Sushumna. The Sushumna is thus a curve. It starts from the lowest

Chakra, rises through the spinal cord to the brain and from there

bends down and ends in the Heart. When the yogi has reached the

Heart, the Samadhi becomes permanent. Thus we see that the Heart is

the final centre."

 

[Note: Commentary by David Godman: Sri Ramana Maharshi never advised

his devotees to parctise Kundalini Yoga since he regarded it as being

both potentially dangerous and unnecessary. He accepted the existence

of the Kundalini power and the Chakras but he said that even if the

Kundalini reached the Sahsrara it would not result in realisation.

For final realisation, he said, the Kundalini must go beyond the

Sahasrara, down another Nadi (psychic nerve) he called *AMRITANADI

*ALSO calld the Paranadi or Jivanadi) and into the Heart-centre on

the right hand side of the chest. Since he maintained that self-

enquiry would automatically send the Kundalini to the Heart-centre,

he taught that separate yoga exercises were unnecessary.

 

The practitioners of Kundalini Yoga concentrate on psychic centres

(Chakras) in the body in order to generate a spiritual power they

call Kundalini. The aim of this practice is to force the Kundalini up

the psychic channel (the Sushumna) which runs from the base of the

spine to the brain. The Kundalini Yogi believes that when this power

reaches the Sahasrara (the highest Chakra located in the brain), Self-

realisation will result.

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi taught that the Self is reached by the search for

the origin of the ego and by diving into the Heart. This is the

direct method of Self-realisation. One who adopts it need not worry

about Nadis, the brain centre (Sahasrara), the Sushumna, the

Paranadi, the Kundalini, Pranayama or the six centres (Chakras).

**********************************************************************

i leave you with this quote ...

 

Whoever thus knows `I am Brahman!' becomes this all; even the gods

have no power to prevent him becoming thus, for he becomes their

self. [brihadaranyaka 1.4.10]

 

Metta-loving-kindness

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

 

> Yet though this may surprise you, I cannot, from an intellectual

> point of view, be entirely satisfied with a completely impersonal

> Brahman. It seems to me that Brahman, being infinite

> consciousness, must subsume any finite consciousness or

> intelligence or purpose. For example, whatever intelligence

> or purpose I can detect in nature through careful analysis,

> it can 'see' in less than the blink of an

> eye. It knows in an instant the motion of every particle in

> every universe at all times, and it has always or eternally

> had instantaneous knowledge of everything there is to know.

> Therefore, it seems to me that Brahman also knows of our

> spiritual development, as we go through our lives. Therefore,

> it at least acquiesces in this development, and in this sense

> our life has a 'God-sanctioned' purpose: our spiritual

> development towards liberation.

 

 

Benjaminji, your words are becoming more and more Divine!

 

> I can only conclude that this slow and painful process of

> spiritual development is necessary, due to some kind of

> deep 'mathematical' reason having to do with the nature of

> consciousness. I realize that such an answer may seem a bit

> evasive and unsatisfactory, but I think that any notion of

> Brahman, or any philosophy other than atheism and materialism,

> entails such a conclusion, unless you wish to postulate

> a malicious Brahman, which seems like an absurdity to me.

 

 

The Gnostics actually believe the absurdity that the God of Judaism

is the source of evil.

 

> So it may be that we must go through spiritual development, much

> as a seed must slowly grow into a tree. Of course, one can

> always ask, 'If God or Brahman is so powerful, why can't it just

> waive its hand and have the fully grown tree immediately appear?'

> In other words, why can't we be instantly enlightened? As I said,

> it must have to do with some deep reason regarding the nature

> or 'structure' of consciousness, which is mathematically

> restricted, in the same sense that '2+2=4', and even God cannot

> change that.

 

 

In one sense this is true, but the strangest thing about

the 'structure' of consciousness is that there can be seeming

violations of this structure. Isn't it really strange that untruth

cannot "be", and yet it "is". Again, why is there in us the power to

transgress the way of truth? Of course there is no rational answer to

this "why", but I think you have touched upon the very kernel of

life's mysteries.

 

> You are right that rather than looking to God to give us goodies,

> we should instead learn to elevate and purify our consciousness

> by becoming detached from the illusion. I do believe that

> suffering can be quenched in this way, and Advaitins and

> Buddhists both state this as a fundamental principle.

 

Essentially I agree with this, but I think we need to be consistent

in our actions by also abstaining from seeking goodies from other

masters of a more earthly sort. If we do, then I feel it would be

better to seek it from God rather than from these earthly masters.

Please note that I am not disagreeing with you, but am only trying to

suggest that we maintain a coherence in our actions. Looking at my

own ignorant and inconsistent state, I am somewhat sympathetic with

those that go for the personal God. :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adiji & Chittaranjanji,

 

More great discussion!

 

 

First Adiji:

>>Some of the older people are OK too!

>

>Does that include me ? a non-intellectual ?

 

I meant older in terms of their time on this list. That was the

context of my statement. Of course, we do not discriminate against

age here, or I would be in trouble too. :-)

 

>The Yogis attach the highest importance to sending the

>Kundalini up to the Sahasrara, the brain centre or the

>thousand petalled lotus.

 

Yes, I admit that I am intrigued by Kundalini. At the same time, it

seems disconcerting to me to reduce enlightenment to a kind of

spiritual biology, though I guess all that manifests must follow some

kind of order, or law, or process. I suppose the answer is that

wisdom and psychic processes are complementary, like different sides

of the same coin.

 

>The Jnanis on the other hand point out that the yogi

>assumes the existence of the body and its separateness

>from the Self ... In fact the body is in the mind which

>has the brain for its seat.

 

I would say that the body (including brain) is only a manifestation

in consciousness which encapsulates or codifies our present level of

spiritual development and awareness. It is because of our egosense

that a body manifests; the body is the expression of this egosense.

We are dreaming that we have a body because of this egosense. The

currents of kundalini, such as they may exist, would also be nothing

but some expression of this entrapment in an illusory body, though

perhaps they are the dense tamasic body starting to melt into a

higher state of consciousness, or something like that.

 

Thus, the rising of the kundalini to the Sahasrara must somehow be

the manifestation in the body/mind complex of the purification of

consciousness and realization of Self. Later, though, you say that

the kundalini descends back down to the heart where it finds its

final resting place. This does sound like something Ramana might

say, though I think it diverges with traditional yoga. I like this

emphasis on the heart rather than the head!

 

>That the brain functions by light borrowed from another

>source is admitted by the yogis themselves

 

Even those materialists who would reject any kind of 'metaphysics'

such as Advaita have a very difficult time explaining how

consciousness could arise from a material brain. In fact, it is

impossible, showing the untenability of crude materialism.

 

 

 

Now on to Chittaranji"

>The Gnostics actually believe the absurdity that the

>God of Judaism is the source of evil.

 

This reminds me of a meeting I had by chance with a young woman whose

family had escaped from the Ayatollah fanaticism of Iran. Her family

was of Persian origin and secretly believed in Zoroastrianism.

Zoroastrianism believes in a double principle to the universe, with a

light and dark God of equal power in conflict with each other.

(Maybe the good God will eventually triumph; I am not sure.) Anyhow,

this view is not unreasonable, given the state of our world.

However, I believe that the light must eventually prevail, and so I

take a basically evolutionary view of manifested reality. It is all

about returning to the Source after a (perhaps necessary) detour in

the world of phenomena and samsara.

 

 

> ...but the strangest thing about the 'structure' of consciousness

>is that there can be seeming violations of this structure...

 

I think this is true only as long as we identify with the body/mind

complex. This identification 'entraps' our consciousness in that

illusory process, like being swept along by a river.

 

So why was God so unkind as to throw us into this process of samsara

in the first place? I think we first had to become intelligent human

beings before we could then take the next stage to realization. Some

tender hearted devotees think that animals such as cows can be

enlightened, but I do not think so. I think that the rational human

stage is a necessary bridge to cross over. Intelligence precedes

wisdom. But while we are on this bridge, the mind can be used for

evil as well as good. The mind basically arose through evolution,

which is all about survival. The body was necessary to support the

brain, just as the brain is necessary as a staging ground for

realization. But our bodily heritage means animal reactions, until

these are controlled.

 

At the same time, all of this is an illusory cinema or dream passing

across our consciousness. It is the expression of an overall

spiritual development. That is the only sense I can make out of it.

 

Really we should not waste too much time wondering or worrying about

why we are here. Rather we should take steps to get out, and those

steps we do know. This is what Shankara and Buddha both say. How

curious that we should know how to get out but not how we got in!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

You wrote:

> Yet though this may surprise you, I cannot, from an intellectual

> point of view, be entirely satisfied with a completely impersonal

> Brahman.

 

I did not follow this. Yet, it is really inevitable. Whether you like

it or not, that Brahman is so impersonal is his nature. We can do

nothing about it. We can at best, know it.

 

In other words, why can't we

> be instantly enlightened? As I said, it must have to do with some

> deep reason regarding the nature or 'structure' of consciousness,

> which is mathematically restricted, in the same sense that '2+2=4',

> and even God cannot change that.

 

Again it is just like that! Good that you stated this, even though it

is just a speculative guess. Atleast this must inspire us to try our

very best to be enlightened. And that too in this same birth, for

there is no certainty of a better chance.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam