A six-party conversation on Concept of God in Hinduism - 2 of 3

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

(Conversation continued from previous post)

 

26. DD: The logical argument is three-fold: 1. First you

have to let go your mental block which says that that

everything can be reduced to simple explanations. You have

to change your mental framework to admit truths beyond the

reach of your common sense.2. Just as we individuals have

minds of our own there are greater minds which are able to

see the global picture more clearly than most of us single

individuals. Carrying this analogy further we have to grant

a super mind that may be called the transcendental mind.

This is the mind of the all-knowing God. 3. The mystics of

the world have a common story to tell the rest of the

world. It is a compelling story whose authenticity is

difficult to dismiss on the basis of our subjective

understanding with our limited minds. ...

 

27. RNB: Excuse me. Pardon me for telling you that you are

only making profound statements without an iota of logic

or personal experience.

 

28. PP (entering at this time): What personal experience

are you talking about?

 

29. OT: RNB wants to have a logical argument for the

existence of God. And DD is telling him that mystics of the

world have a lot of personal experience which we cannot but

believe.

 

30. PP: I agree with RNB that we should not believe in

something of which we have no personal experience.

 

31. OT: Come on, that is false logic. Do you have personal

experience that so and so is your father?

 

32. RNB: Please, my friends, stop going in that direction.

Our business here is not to win a point, but to search and

find out whether there is any logical way in which we can

believe in the existence of God.

 

33. PP: That is right. As a professor of philosophy I like

Hinduism not because of its variety, flexibility and

tolerance but because of its ideal mixture of reason and

faith. Reason saves the aspiring devotee from avoidable

errors and pitfalls and faith supports him with courage in

the hour of despondency.

 

34. RNB: Then what is the final authority? Reason or Faith?

 

35. OT: Faith in the scriptures, certainly.

 

36. DD: But even the Gita is difficult to comprehend.

 

37. PP: By depending solely on faith in the scriptures one

tends to be dogmatic. By depending solely on Reason one may

fall into the trap of rationalising one’s desire. Such a

person proves what he wants to prove. Personal experience

by itself can be deceptive because one may be just

projecting one’s own favourite ideas. All three have to be

combined to arrive at the truth. I am told this is what the

Upanishads claim to be doing.

 

38. RNB: Aren’t the Upanishads also full of dogmatic

pronouncements called ‘maha-vakyas’?

 

39. OT: These mahavakyas are the axioms from which the

other things are logically deduced.

 

40. PP: Do they tell you why man has been created? What

must have been the purpose of creation?

 

41. DD: Man has been created in order for him to work out

the path to go back to his source, namely God.

 

42. RNB: Then it means he was separated from God

originally. Why was he separated?

 

43. PP: You will go nowhere by asking these questions.

Because if you assign some purpose to God for his creation

you will have then to question the very omniscience and

omnipotence which are part of the definition of God.

 

44. RNB: What is wrong in questioning the omniscience and

omnipotence? That is why I say you cannot even postulate a

God. Because by the nature of your postulation you have

also to postulate that he is omnipresent, omniscient and

omnipotent. In other words you are postulating everything

about him and then you say you can logically deduce his

presence from the mahavakyas.

 

45. OT: But the omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience

have been demonstrated in several instances recorded in

the puranas of religion. Have you heard of Prahlada’s story

where the Lord appeared from a pillar just like that in

order to demonstrate the truth of his omnipresence asserted

by his devotee?

 

46. RNB: These are only stories and have only a

story-value.

 

47. PP: All of this tantamounts to saying that one should

have faith. As I said already, only by a proper mixture of

reason and faith you can arrive at the truth. Neither of

them singly will be satisfactory.

 

48. RNB: On the other hand the laws of nature as

discovered by science can explain almost all the phenomena

in the universe. And very soon they will also discover

explanations for those phenomena which are at present

eluding our scientific understanding.

 

49. OT: Can science explain all the mystery that is

experienced at the individual human level?

 

50. DD: All through history we have heard of thousands of

individuals who have been emotionally influenced by the

Divnity of temple deities.

 

51. OT: That is where religion and philosophy play a part.

Every temple in the world of Hindus is a monumental

example of what spiritual giants have achieved in the

past. Their achievements in the spiritual field are all

part of the history of that temple.

 

52. PP: Hindu philosophy, on the other hand, starts by

investigating the mystery surrounding the individual mind.

The innermost essence of man refers to the substratum of

the individual mind. But ancient Hindu philosophers have

seen a parallelism between the study of the individual

and that of the universe as a whole.

 

53. SV (entering at this point): Friends, I was standing

nearby and I heard the words ‘religion’, ‘philosophy’ and

‘science’ tossed about among you. I think I can join the

discussion , if you don’t mind.

 

54. RNB: What is your opinion, SV, since you have dabbled

in both science and Vedanta, about the question of the

existence of God? Can you tell us some real good reason why

I should believe in God?

 

55. SV: Frankly, if you ask my sincere opinion, the

existence of God cannot be proved. I would love myself to

have a proof but all the proofs they are all giving has

some flaw or other. God must be the name we have given to

what we cannot understand even collectively. Such a God has

to be the creative force, the overall intelligence which

governs the universe, the all-pervading essence which binds

together everything in the universe and gives life to all

living beings.

 

56. RNB: Beautiful definition! But only a definition. It

does not say whether such a thing exists or not.

 

57. PP: If you are looking for it intellectually, it is the

creative force, the sustaining power, the motivation

towards change, the overall intelligence, the truth.

 

58. OT: If you are looking at it emotionally, it is love,

goodness, kindness and beauty. Among feminine qualities,

says the Lord in the tenth chapter of the Gita, “I am

glory, beauty, speech, memory, intelligence, steadfastness

and forgiveness”. (KiirtiH shrIr-vAk-ca nArINAM ... )

 

59. SV: If you are looking at it spiritually, it is the

ever-present all-pervading essence or spirit that gives

life to everything and binds them all.

 

60. DD: You are all confusing me. I simply know Him as He

who gives me rewards when I do good and punishes me when I

default in my ethics or morals.

 

61. PP: There are different levels of the conception of

God. An answer given to a questioner at one level will not

suit or be satisfactory to, the questioner at a different

level. When a Hindu child asks you to tell her about God,

you can tell her stories about Rama and Krishna. When a

teen-ager questions you about the existence of God, you may

deal out the super-designer argument, which may satisfy

the questioner for the moment. When an adult asks the

same question you have to answer at a higher level; the

super-designer argument may not work with all persons.

 

62. SV: The beauty of Hindu philosophy and religion lies in

the fact that instead of starting with the reality of the

universal mind (this is the name that I give to God in my

understanding of things), they start from what is

experienced at the human level. So the innermost recesses

of the human mind are first explored. This investigation

leads to what constitutes the innermost essence of man. One

finds that the innermost essence of man is the seeker

himself, rid of all his tools of search. In fact the mind

itself is part of the luggage that is to be shed off. But

the exploration of this innermost core is inextricably

interlinked with the preconditioning of the mind. This

preconditioning is nothing but the cumulative effect of all

traces of sensory experience left in the memory bank. This

preconditioning differs from individual to individual and

so the understanding of the innermost core also varies

from person to person.

 

63. DD: Ah, I see the point now. It is clear now why I

jumped from one God to another in my search for that God

who will listen to me! It all depends on the

preconditioning of my mind at that time. Wonderful!

 

64. PP: The technical jargon that is equivalent to this

‘preconditioning’ is ‘VasanA’. This innermost core is what

I call the psychic principle. The Vedantins call it the

Atman.

 

65. SV: Though there is no scientific proof of this, it is

declared by Vedantic works that this psychic principle, the

Atman, is so deep-seated within us that it has a sense of

undeniable reality that goes with it, in the same sense

that one does not look for a proof of one’s own existence.

 

66. OT: That is because, it is God seated in our heart of

hearts. “IshvaraH sarva-b hutAnAM ..” in the last chapter

of the Gita. He is the One who prompts all our actions and

our thoughts.

 

67. SV: Don’t confuse the issue now by bringing theology

and all that stuff about God being the motivator of our

actions. RNB here and I would immediately ask you to give

logical proof for it and you will be stuck. The subject

here is different; it is about the question as to what the

innermost core of Man is. Let me continue my observations.

This innermost reality within us is the real subject of all

our experiences. It is the eternal witness to everything

that I do or think.

 

68. RNB: But where is God now, in all this?

 

69. AV: (entering and joining the discussion): It appears

you are looking for God.

 

70. SV: Now that you have joined us, AV, we would like you

to give us the benefit of all your knowledge about Vedanta

and advaita to solve this riddle of the existence of God.

 

71. AV: Since you have referred to advaita, let me say this

much. There is no God other than yourself.

 

72. OT: I see you are referring to the Atman within each

man. But then, that would mean there are several Gods.

 

73. PP: Simple. There are not several Atmans. The Atman

within yourself and the Atman within myself is the same.

 

74. DD: But the question is about God who is Master of the

universe and who is the Creator of this universe.

 

75. PP: This is where Hindu philosophy has scored.

Particularly the advaita school. They assert that the Atman

which is the innermost core of ourselves is also the

transcendent eternal Reality which is omnipresent . The

name given to that Supreme Reality is Brahman. The

declaration of the Upanishads is, according to advaita,

Atman is the same as Brahman, period! This statement is not

amenable to any proof. Yogis however say that it will be

seen as true in meditative Samadhi.

 

--------------------------

(To be Continued)

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

 

 

 

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

 

Ongoing new series of pages on my website: 'Bhagavatam and Advaita Bhakti'

starting with

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/Bhagavatam_Introduction.html