Swami Chinmayananda on "God"

[Guest guest]

YOU ME & GOD

Swami Chinmayananda

"Swamiji, I don't believe in God".

It was a young man, modern, tight pants, tobacco pipe stuck at waist, trim thin

moustache. He spoke Emglish with an Americanized drawl, and was evidently one of

our university products, with higher education abroad. Sophisticated, to the

points of his pointed toes.

Swamiji beamed. "Excellent!" With a broad welcoming smile, nodding his head

slowly, Swamiji continued: "That's fine. I like you. You are the man I have been

wanting to meet. I like your outspokenness. You are intelligent and you think

independently. You have the courage to speak out your conviction, straight from

the shoulder, as they say. Now come, WHAT KIND of GOD is it, that you don't

believe in?"

The young man, who had made his statement about his non-believing, with a little

hesitation, probably at his own audacity at denying GOD before a God-man, was

pleasantly surprised at Swamiji's cordial tone and benign smile, and, feeling

encouraged, went on:

"This God, who sits above the clouds, and judges men, and dispenses favours and

punishments by remote-control, at his own sweet will, don't you think Swamiji,

it is all hocus pocus?"

Swamiji laughed. "Shake hands, young man. I am entirely with you. Now, we are

two, together. I too, don't believe in THAT KIND OF GOD. But........hmm, did ypu

have breakfast before coming?"

"Yes, Swamiji."

"Well, What did you have for breakfast?"

"The usual things, porridge, toast, scrambled eggs, coffee...."

"Eggs. That's nice. Eggs! Now, where did the eggs come from Ram, that's your

name isn't it?"

Ram, with his brows raised, feeling that Swamiji was leading up to something,

said: " I don't exactly know, probably one of those new poultry farms near

Poona".

Swamiji: "I don't mean that. How are eggs made? Do they grow in fields, or are

they made in factories?"

"Simple. I think you are trying to pull my legs, but all the same I'll answer

you. Hens, of course. Hens lay eggs, you know!" Ram said with an air of

flippancy.

Nodding his head, up and down, thoughtfully, Swamiji continued: " I see, I see,

so the eggs come from hens. Now where do the hens come from?"

Ram, an intelligent man, could see the trap he was being led into. He started

saying: "Of course from.....". Then wide eyed, looked at Swamiji silently.

Swamiji smiled: "So, eggs come from hens, hens come from eggs, which again come

from other hens, and so on, ad-infinitum. Can you, Ram, say with any certainty,

which was the first cause? Egg or hen? How and why?

Swamiji, now addressing all the devotees present, went on: "You see, God is not

just a person or individual, sitting in a palace above the clouds, dispensing

favours. It stands to reason that every effect must have had a cause prior to

it. The watch that you are wearing did not make itself. Your breakfast did not

cook itself. There was a cause, in each case. The cause must have emerged from a

previous cause. GOD is now the first cause. The sole cause. The UNCAUSED CAUSE.

There was no cause before Him. He is the oldest, the most ancient, He was before

TIME. The Sanaatanah, the Puraanah. This `Causation hunting' is the favourite

pastime of the evolving human intellect -- trying to trace everything to its

ultimate origin. That which is beyond the point at which the intellect gets

stalled, is G-O-D. The intellect cannot come to a conclusion as to the ultimate

cause as in the age - old example of the hen and the egg. `Thus far -- not

farther' is the limitation of the capacity of the human

intellect."

Ram was flushed with excitement. He was thrilled. In a faltering voice he asked

" There does seem to be something in what you say, Swamiji. Am I to understand

that THAT is God?"

"That, which you now speak of as GOD, my boy, the muslim calls Allah; the

christian refers to as "My father in Heaven"; the Parsee as Ahura Mazda. These

are a few of the different ways in which HE or IT is referred to, but all are

referring to the SAME SUPREME PRINCIPLE. The cause behind all causes. The source

of all that was, now is, and ever will be. The Vedas refer to it as BRAHMAN, the

Absolute, the infinite. THE TRUTH IS ONE. THE WISE SPEAK OF IT VARIOUSLY."

" But, Swamiji, the description does not seem to be complete. Is that all that

God is? How can one come to know Him?"

"Now, you are really getting somewhere. I have not `described' God. He cannot be

described. To define is Him is to defile Him. What I pointed out only

constitutes one way, one manner, of approaching the Truth. It is just one

aspect. Now, Your second question asks `How can one come to know Him?'

`Know him!' He cannot be `known' as you know this table or this chair or your

wife or your pipe. He is not an object of the intellect. He is the VERY SUBJECT.

Have you heard of the great disciple of the Kenopanishad who approached the

Master and enquired :"Revered Sir, What is IT, directed by which the mind

cognizes objects, the eyes see, the ears hear and so on?' The master cryptically

answered :"It is the eye of the eye; the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind'.

In fact It is the VERY Subject that enables the eyes to see, the ear to hear

etc. It is not an object of the senses or the Mind or the Intellect. Hence, to

answer your question, I have to tell you that you cannot make God an object of

Knowledge.

An example will elucidate the idea. You are walking along a dark country road at

night, occasionally illuminating your path with the aid of a battery torch; you

want to know how the torch gives light; you unscrew the torch, you will not be

able to see the battery cells, as the bulb will not emit light unless powered by

the battery of cells. Similarly, the eyes, the ears, the mind and the intellect,

all of which get their own power to function from the LIFE PRINCIPLE, cannot

understand IT as an object. God is thus conceived of as the life principle, in

every one."

The audience sat spell bound listening to Swamiji, exposition of a difficult

vedantic truth in easy lucid style.

"Then Swamiji, you say that God or Truth is something abstract, that cannot be

seen or heard or touched -- or even thought of. Am I right?"

" You are very much right. In fact, God is all this and much more. The Bhagawad

Geeta says: `Weapons cleave It not; fire burns It not; water wets It not; wind

dries It not. This 'Self' cannot be cut, nor burnt nor wetted nor dried.' It is

not material; It is not matter, understand."

"Why did you `Self'?"

"The Supreme, Life Principle, is also the SELF in you, in me and in everybody.

It is the innermost core of your personality. The popular misconception is that

`man is a body, with a soul'. That it is not correct. The Truth is that `Man is

THE SOUL, in a body'. He is eternal. The role of the body is likened to a worn

out garment that is discarded by the wearer at his will."

Now, the other members of the audience who had been listening with awe and

reverence, took the oppurtunity to clear their doubts.

"Swamiji, if God cannot be seen or thought of, is an abstraction, is there any

significance to idol worship?"

"Of course there is a lot. When your dear son is in America, and you cannot see

him whenever you want, do you or do you not get solace by looking at his

photograph? You do know that the photo IS NOT YOUR SON, but only a piece of

paper with various tones of grey, but it reminds you of your beloved boy and his

great love for you. So also the idols in temples are to remind the devotees of

the ideal, the Supreme. Since the human mind cannot conceive of a formless

Supreme, God is conceived of in the form as represented by an idol. To the

earnest devotee, the idol appears as a living embodiment of his Lord, and he

goes into ecstasy at its sight. It is, however, necessary to remember that the

idol is NOT God, but represents God."

" Why is it, Swamiji, that as in Christianity or Islam, a particular day of the

week is not earmarked in Hinduism for temple worship?"

At this question, Swamiji drrew himself up, straightened and roared at the top

of His voice; " HINDUISM IS NOT A PART TIME RELIGION." He then explained at

length that aspiration to associate with divinity cannot be restricted to any

particular time." Have you heard of the school boy who said that `the earth is

round on Sundays and flat on other days'? So also, a man cannot be made to be

divine on Sundays and devilish on all other days. (Maybe, most of us are that

way!)

So constant practice, frequent association with the good etc., are needed. The

temple visits and worship should elevate the mind of the seeker and help him to

keep his mind in a higher plane. He should also take other steps to continue the

purification of the mind at all times of the day, at home, in the office, at the

market place."

"What is a pure mind, Swamiji?"

"A pure mind is one which is calm, free from agitations. Agitations are caused

mainly by our likes and dislikes and desires. Desires spell disaster, fulfilled

or frustrated. Mahatma Gnadhi was very fond of the `Sthitha Pragna' portion of

the second chapter of the Bhagawad Geeta, in which the causes and consequences

of desire are most graphically described.

It is the ladder of fall: "When a man thinks of objects, attachments for them

arises; from attachment, desire is born; from desire (unfulfilled) arises anger;

from anger comes delusion; from delusion loss of memory, the destruction of

discrimination; from destruction of discrimination he perishes."

Swamiji added: " The Lord also points out then the three great entrances to hell

are lust, anger and greed."

One in the audience asked: "I have read a good deal Swamiji, I also have

convictions. Yet, to put these values in practice is my problem."

Swamiji :"This was exactly Arjuna's problem. The Lord advised him, Recognise

your real enemies. They are desire and anger, born of passionate nature, all

devouring and sinful'. Knowing your enemies will enable you to destroy them.

Knowing your weaknesses, you will make efforts to discard them. Once you locate

a dead rat in your wardrobe, that was emitting foul odour, you will promptly

pick it up by the tail and throw it as far away as possible."

"Our sastras have laid down a clearcut procedure. The three - fold practice

consists of Sravana, Manana and Nidhidhyasana - Hearing is not in

one-ear-out-the other, `It is attentive listening to discourses on our great

scriptures (including reading them), contemplating on the ideas contained

therein, and lastly meditation.

Many people come and tell me that they have gone through the Geeta many times. I

tell them `Let the Geeta go through you once atleast. It will do you more good.'

Not just hearing or reading but absorption of the great ideas contained therein,

assimilating them, and living those values will alone produce a radiance in the

life of an individual. Proper understanding, and correct attitudes are

important. For example, we often meet the allegation that Hinduism is an

`out-of-the world religion' meant only for the recluse. The spirit of Hinduism

is not understood by those who say this. Wealth is not taboo for the seeker, but

the constant craving for wealth IS. Property is not prohibited, but one is

enjoined to use it in the service of society.

The vedantic concept of renunciation has nothing to do with have or have-not, in

a physical sense; it means the attitude of non-attachment. The classical example

of our ancient lore is that of Emperor Janaka, living in the luxury of a palace,

but still considered such a great saint and sage that great aspirants went to

him for guidance.

If you ask me `how to start', my answer is `Just start'. when? Now !

Today is the best day. A better day will not come.

The greatest master who lived and worked for the cause of religion in India, Adi

Sankara, has laid down the prescription:

"Bhagawad Geeta and Vishnu Sahasranama are to be chanted; always the form of the

Lord of Lakshmi is to be meditated upon. The mind is to be led towards the

company of the good. wealth is to be shared with the needy".

Now, many people wait for retirement to take to religion. They will never take

to it, because they will have new problems in the way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

I am reminded of a very cryptic poser attributed to Mata

Amritanandamayi Devi. She once asked an untiring rationalist who was

piling up evidence after evidence to prove that there in fact was no

God: "My son, why are you wasting all your time to prove the non-

existence of a non-existent entity?" Rationalists, in my opinion,

deserve no more entertaining.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Maniji.

>

> I am reminded of a very cryptic poser attributed to Mata

> Amritanandamayi Devi. She once asked an untiring rationalist who was

> piling up evidence after evidence to prove that there in fact was no

> God: "My son, why are you wasting all your time to prove the non-

> existence of a non-existent entity?" Rationalists, in my opinion,

> deserve no more entertaining.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste Madathil Nair,

 

yes....instead to prove the non-existence or existence of "God".....by

many words on a rationalists way....

 

one can try to keep on "causing" untity and peace ....with a good heart

(God)....

 

.....there will be the Love of God showing His presence.....wherever we

are looking.....with His eyes.......our heart

 

Regards and Love

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

praNAm,

 

Swami Chinmayananda's statement "Now come, WHAT KIND of GOD is it, that

you don't believe in?", is the answer to all those who believe that

there is "no God".

 

To say that "God" does or does not exist, one first needs to define

"God". This is a general principle - to decide whether or not "chairs"

exist, one would first need to define "chairs".

 

When prodded like this, most "rationalists" would define "God" as "one

who sits above the skies and dispenses justice" or as some sort of

"guardian angel". In effect, what they are saying is that it is futile

to "pray" for anything as there is nobody who would listen to those

prayers and grant any benefits. I agree with them on this. The problem

though is that many "believers" believe precisely in a "God" like this,

as somebody who rules the world according to his will, who responds to

prayers, etc. Modern education tends to build up the intellect, which

then revolts against a conception of "God" like this.

 

But the word "God" is a matter of definition. One general definition

would be "the truth that needs to be realized" and a fundamental aspect

of that truth is the loss of the ego, which leads to a cessation of all

desires. When I mentioned this to a "rationalist" friend of mine, he

agreed. But then he bounced back on the futility of prayer. In effect,

he was opposing Bhakti. I told him that Bhakti Yoga is not meant to

obtain any gifts like wealth, etc, but is a means to kill the ego.

Likewise, all the other yoga-s are meant to kill the ego. While

individual schools may differ on the nature of the truth, the killing of

the ego and the cessation of desires is, in one way or the other, common

to all our Vedic & Buddhist schools. In this light, it is rather

meaningless to say "I dont believe in God". What is the God that you

dont believe in? Fundamentally, God is not a matter of belief at all.

One may or may not believe in a particular conception of God, but

ultimately, it is the truth to be realized.

 

On deeper examination, the "rationalist" objection to Bhakti is

precisely because it hurts the ego, and it does so right upfront!! The

other Yoga-s are a bit less straight-forward in this matter.

 

Hari Om

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Respected friends,

 

On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 13:09, Ramesh Murthy wrote:

> ...

> When prodded like this, most "rationalists" would define "God" as

> "one who sits above the skies and dispenses justice" or as some

> sort of "guardian angel". In effect, what they are saying is

> that it is futile to "pray" for anything as there is nobody who

> would listen to those prayers and grant any benefits. I agree

> with them on this. The problem though is that many "believers"

> believe precisely in a "God" like this,

> ...

 

As per our tradition, the personal god also exists. Should we not give

due importance to all aspects of the vedas (adibhUta, adidaiva,

adhyaAtma)? From the adidaiva perspective, there are several gods to

whom prayers are duly given -- agni, rudra, indra, sUrya, pUsha,

purusha, ApOdEvates, varuNa, viShvEdEvAh, etc. Even the great rishis

performed sacrifices for these gods daily.

 

Can we reject the adidaiva and accept only adhyAtma?

 

<Borrowed Quote>

The vEdas are like a tree that contains roots, stem, branches, bark,

leaves, flowers and fruits. Only the fruit is edible in the tree. Even

though we cannot eat the bark, we may not reject it because it is also

very much required.

</Borrowed Quote>

 

Our understanding of the advaitic concepts, need not deter us from our

daily prayers to personal gods. Of course, I have my reservations about

prayers rendered for greed or fear.

 

If one reaches a stage where one transcends prayers and gods, one is

indeed fortunate.

 

In my opinion, it is useless to argue with someone that there is god,

since people rarely change their view points. Of course, if one has the

calibre of the AchAryas, then it is a different issue.

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra