Posts Tagged ‘Absolute’
Friday, July 2nd, 2010
Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Nota Bene II
We are asking so many questions about God, but can we ask just a few questions for ourselves? Do we really believe in God? If we really believe in Him, then we wouldn’t be doing what we are doing now. If He really comes in front of us, then we would not be treating Him as we are treating Him now when He is not present in front of us. If He really comes here and sees us doing what we are not supposed to be doing, then would He be proud of us after all His teaching and preaching?
Questions to ask for ourselves:
If we really believe in Him, then have we ever tried to achieve a few good qualities of Him? If we believe in humanity, then how come we, at times, become inhumane to others? We should not be asking for death of others, as in case of death sentence, for the death of our loved ones. God never preached an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather He taught us for forgiveness. How can we ask for forgiveness from Him, if are not willing to forgive others? If He is merciful, then why we do not show mercy to others? Why we hurt others or kill them – doesn’t matter if they are animals or humans, friends or foes, rich or poor, good or bad, justified or unjustified, for good or for bad. If we believe Him as the judge of everyone then why are we judging others? If we believe He does justice to others, then how can we do injustice to others? If we believe He is the boss, then why we take His law in our hands and try to be bossy on others. If we know He has tolerated and suffered for others and is still doing so, then why we are not so tolerant to others. Why we bother whom, why, and how others worship to Him, if we are not sure for ourselves why, how, and whom we worship. If we cannot develop any of His good qualities in us, then how can we expect Him to enjoy our company in His abode? If we firmly believe in Him, then why do we have doubt in Him? If we believe in Him then why do we have double standards – one for us and one for others; or why do we have triple standards for our own self – for thinking something else, saying something else, and doing something else?
Lastly, a few words about the science:
Let’s ask a few questions about the science and religion. Has anyone heard any scientists saying, “I study and teach science, astronomy, or physics in college and university, but I do not believe in black hole,” or “I do not believe that black hole exists.” “Well, Gravity is Gravity, but, I believe in Newton’s Gravity and do not believe in Einstein’s Gravity.” “I teach solar system, but I do not believe that the sun is at the center.” “I do not believe that the earth is round. I personally believe that the earth is flat.” Well, this happens in case of religion and religious philosophy. One may hear, among religious philosophers, saying that, “I study and teach religious philosophy, but, I do not believe in God or in His existence.” “I teach religion but I do not believe in Western God. I believe in Eastern God.” “I preach about the religious practices and commands of God to others, but, I personally do not believe in strictly following them.” In science the measures used, for example, of time, length, volume, mass, etc., are standard: nationally and internationally, globally and universally, for the scientists and for laymen, for poor and rich, or for believers and for non-believers. Well, for religion, the measures or ethical and moral do’s and don’ts, such as, not to steal, not to deceive, not to adulterate, not to gain or use wealth in wrongful way, to do humanitarian or charitable work, etc. are all relative, never absolute or neutral. They change according to the person, time, circumstances, creed, greed, wealth, color, race, gender, sexual orientation, and individual preferences. We see double or triple standards for ourselves and for others, for believing, preaching, and practicing. We talk about the Truth but we try to hide the truth. The science proposes and publishes theories, but never impose upon others to believe them. Whichever theory is true would be survived in the harsh experimental testing and rigorous argumentative discourses and debates and then would be accepted widely until it is disproved by another theory that would be more truthful, veridical, and realistic. Science is open to accept the truth and is also open to reject the un-truth. In case of religion, it is not like that. God’s words are all revealed in the scriptures but we want, to believe and interpret them, subjectively, according to our own will, likings, preferences, or necessities. Not only that we want to promote and impose upon others what we believe is true, simply because of our deep faith and love in ourselves. In religion, we are not open to accept criticism, nor are we willing to accept other beliefs simply because we do not know the truth. Until then belief simply remain as a belief. These are the differences between trust in the science and faith in the religion. For the majority of people, in the current era of modernization, religion has remained the subject of belief and discussion only, whereas, science is becoming day by day the subject of trust. The root cause of the difference is in the application or practicing. Whatever the science says people apply and whatever religion says people are reluctant to put into practice.
Why the science and spirituality do not go together? Why religions shy away from the science and why many scientists do not believe in God? Spirituality is based on the faith while science is based on the facts. Spirituality has no limitations, science has limitations. Spirituality thinks farther and faster but philosophically, science thinks comparatively nearer and slower but firmly. We can say that spirituality is far-sighted, science is near-sighted. If we believe in God, then we should not have to worry even for science. Science can make us untrue but not the god. If we worry about the science, then in fact we are worried about ourselves, about the philosophies that we have created, about the understanding of the scriptures that we have interpreted, and about the explanations of God that we have enforced to or imparted upon others, that we might be disproved otherwise by the science. If we do worry, then believe that, God also worries with us. If God doesn’t worry then why should we worry at all? Shouldn’t we be that courageous or confident? Science is not our enemy. Science is our friend helping us to understand the truth, to correct us if we are doing anything mistakenly. Are not we supposed to be using the science to explore the Truth, to propagate the Truth, and to keep us alive and healthy for long to enjoy the bliss of the Truth? Science and spirituality go together and cannot be separated from our lives. As religious people, we might think that science is our enemy, but on the contrary, science is our rival in searching for the truth. So, let it race and go deeper and deeper. It will ultimately help us. Ultimately, a day will come when science will also be ineffable and say, “Truth is there, but we are incapable to describe it.” “Not this, not this,” as it is said for God in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, “Neti, Neti” meaning, “this is not the Truth, the Truth is still beyond – beyond our reach, beyond our description, and beyond our understanding.” God is indescribable.
Tags:a tooth for a tooth, Absolute, an eye for an eye, animals, application, astronomy, bad, belief, believe, believers, believing, Black Hole, bliss, boss, Brihadaranyaka, charitable, circumstances, color, commands, Concluding comments, confident, courageous, creed, criticism, Darshan, debates, discourses, discussion, disproved, do’s and don’ts, double standards, Earth, enemy, enforced, ethical, experimental, explanations, facts, faith, far-sighted, foes, forgiveness, friend, friends, gender, globally, God, good, gravity, greed, humanitarian, humanity, humans, hurt, imparted upon, impose upon, indescribable, ineffable, inhumane, injustice, internationally, interpret, interpretations, judge, justice, justified, laymen, length, liking, love, mass, measures, merciful, mercy, modernization, moral, nationally, near-sighted, necessities, Neti, neutral, non-believers, Nota Bene, person, Philosophy, physics, poor, practice, practicing, preaching, preference, preferences, promote, race, realistic, relative, religion, religious practices, rich, rival, science, Scientists, sexual orientation, Shad Darshan, spirituality, standard, subject, subjectively, sun, testing, time, tolerant, triple standards, trust, Truth, truthful, understanding, universally, unjustified, Upanishad, veridical, volume, wealth, will, worry
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Nota Bene II | Comments Closed
Saturday, June 26th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Swaminarayan philosophy – Parabrahm
Parabrahm, Purushottam, or Narayan: Part IV
For the human form of God, there are also two kinds of understandings prevailing: Paroksh bhāv and Pratyaksh bhāv. Paroksh (para + aksha) means beyond our vision or eyesight, when He does not remain in front of our eyes. Paroksh bhav means the feelings created in common people’s mind that God has left this world bared without His protective presence, when God leaves this ordinary human form and goes back to His abode. Some even have feeling that “their God” has come last and no God will come or appear now or afterwards. Pratyaksh (prati + aksha = in front of our eyes) means the feelings created in learned person’s mind that God never leaves this world unattended and He is always present in this world to guide us. Pratyaksh bhav means the feeling of God right in front of our eyes, not even a slightest distance away from our eyes. Paroksh form of God means the form, revelation, or manifestation of God that has previously happened on this earth. Pratyaksh form of God means the present form of God in our own time for our own sake of fulfillment of our wishes, bliss and happiness, and ultimately our liberation. Shri Krishna Bhagwan in Bhagvad Gita says that, “Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bhārata, abhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmanam shrujāmi aham ||” (Bhagvad Gita: 4.7) Meaning, “Whenever there is a decline in religious practices, O Arjun (the descendent of King Bharat), I by myself manifest in this world and outroot the evil.” God or God-realized sant is always present on this earth to reestablish and revitalize the transcendental religious practices (Sanātan or Ekāntik Dharma) and to liberate the souls (jiv) that are following the said religious practices. The feeling of God present right in front of our eyes is very important in worshiping.
The form of God is very difficult to understand, but we have to trust the words of the scriptures – the words of God Himself. We can say that, God on Earth and God in His abode are like difficult-to-understand yet unhesitatingly accepted wave-particle duality or uncertainty principle of the science. We, as an inexperienced people, have to believe it. In Hinduism, sakar and nirakar forms are described mainly for Brahm only. Whenever nirakar form is described in the scriptures it is in reference to Brahm only. In Hinduism, God is always described as sakar. He is omnipotent or all-powerful. He can take any form whatever He wants, as many as He wants, and as many times as He wants. If He says He will appear and He may not. If He says that He wouldn’t and He may appear. Obviously, we do not have any control over that and we cannot put any limitations over that too. God is independent. He can do whatever He wants. “Hari, chāhe jo kare so hoye,” meaning, whatever God does it happens. Sometimes it looks like we have the control over His form. When God takes the form or avatar, it doesn’t mean He transforms Himself to that form but He “appears” to us in that form. He never changes His original form, nor does He leave His abode. In Hinduism, sakar forms of God (avatars) are described parallel to the evolution of living beings on Earth. Initial avatars are described in animal forms, such as, Matsya (the fish), Kurma (the tortoise), and Varah (the boar). All latest forms or avatars are in human forms to show the similarity or likeness with us, such as, Vaman, Parashuram, Ram, Krishna, and Buddha. If, we had a form different than human, then God also would have taken that different form for our salvation. Thus, the human form of God is most closely related to us. Now, what does sakar mean in Hinduism? Sakar means human like but divine form with all His divinity and without any of the worldly attributes of the body, such as, aging, gender difference, changes of maturity, personality traits, psychological problems, etc. God is never described as nirakar or even as an abstract entity. God has definite but an absolute form.
Though, in spiritual language He is transcendental to us, in worldly language, He is a reality like us, so His messengers or representatives are also like us. His language is like our language. His way of communication is like our way of communication. He can listen to our prayers. He can feel our pain. He can fulfill our wishes. He can accept our services and worship. This is all because He is like human beings, but He is not human being. He is divine being. He is master and we are His servants. He is boss and we are His subordinates. He is king and we are His subjects.
Tags:abode, Absolute, abstract, aksha, all-powerful, Arjun, Avatars, Bhagvad, Bhagwan, bliss, Brahm, Buddha, Darshan, dharma, Earth, Ekāntik, entity, evil, evolution, form, Gita, God, God-realized, happiness, Hinduism, human, jiv, King Bharat, Krishna, Kurma, liberation, living beings, manifest, manifestation, Matsya, Narayan, nirākār, only. Omnipotent, Para, Parabrahm, Parashuram, paroksh, Paroksh bhāv, Philosophy, practices, prati, pratyaksh, Pratyaksh bhāv, Purushottam, Rãm, reestablish, religious, revelation, revitalize, sākār, salvation, Sanātan, Sant, science, Scriptures, Shad Darshan, Shri, souls, Swaminarayan, transcendental, unattended, uncertainty principle, Vaman, Varah, Vedānta, wave-particle duality, wishes, world, Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bhārata
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Navya Vishishtadvaita, Parabrahm - Part IV, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Saturday, June 12th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Shuddhadvaita philosophy
Shuddhadvait philosophy of Vallabhacharya:
Pure non-dualism or Suddha Advait (Shuddhadvait) philosophy is given by the 15th century scholar of Hinduism Shri Vallabhacharya (1479-1531). As one may think, the pure non-dualism may mean Advaita or Monism, but it is not. Advaita philosophy of Shankaracharya and Monism of the Western world are different than pure non-dualism. About the relationship between two realities, namely, the world and God, Vallabhacharya believes that God (Brahm) is pure and non-dualistic, but at the same time, unlike Shankaracharya, he strongly believes that the souls and Nature (universe) are not illusion but real. His philosophy is known as Shuddhadvait Brahmvād. This is opposite of Kevala Advait philosophy of Shankaracharya, in which, the world and souls are all considered as one with Brahm. The difference between Advait philosophy of Shankaracharya and the Advait philosophy of Vallabhacharya is that, in Shankaracharya’s philosophy the soul, Nature (universe) and everything else is Brahm but look different because of the illusion created by the ignorance (avidyā) and veil of maya. In Vallabhacharya’s philosophy the soul, Nature (universe) and everything else is real but appears distinct from Brahm until one is totally engrossed in the bhakti of Krishna (God), at that time everything is realized as God, just as Gopis used to see and realized everything as Krishna and nothing but Krishna. Foe example, when they were selling butter they used to see Krishna instead of butter.
Surprisingly, in the non-dualistic philosophy the general belief that God is unparalleled, the one and only is still maintained. Vallabhacharya strongly believed that Brahm means personal God – the Supreme Being and he could not accept the nirgun and nirakar nature of Brahm. He firmly believed that God is in the personal form only so as to accept his devotion and services (seva bhakti). The difference in Vallabhacharya’s tradition and other Vaishnav Acharya’s traditions is in the style of worship or devotion and in the use of specific terminologies. In Vallabhacharya’s tradition, also known as Pushti marg, the initiation to the tradition means “brahmsambandh.” The word “pushti” literary means “the grace of God” and “brahmsambandh,” literary, means the relationship (sambandh) or union of the soul with Brahm (the supreme entity or God). Brahmsambandh is needed to transform the ordinary jiv (soul) to Pushti jiv (pure or graced soul). “Pushti marg” means the path of spiritual nourishment and of the grace of God. The one who is admitted to the Pushti marg gets the kind of purity of one’s soul, which is needed to be eligible to pursue bhakti (meaning, the daily worshiping or services called sevā of the murti (as if it is living deity) which is known as Pushti Swaroop) and relationship with God (Brahm). The pure love for God (Shri Krishna in His child manifestation) is shown through seva (services to God) and smaran (remembering God). In Pushti marg the exclusive rights to grant brahmsambandh are only given to the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya. In Pushti marg, the enjoyment of God’s bliss and God’s grace are considered as the primary goals of the devotee, seeking the liberation is secondary to it. Achieving the knowledge (gnan) – brahmgnan or atmagnan is not considered as important as the personal services (seva) to God for the liberation.
Vallabhacharya was a contemporary of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Just as Chaitanya’s tradition is known by the Kirtan Bhakti of adult Krishna, Vallabhacharya’s tradition is known by the Seva Bhakti of child Krishna (Lālji). Philosophy wise both traditions – the tradition of Vallabhacharya and the tradition of Chaitanya are almost similar except some minor differences in worshiping. Vallabhacharya’s tradition is known as the path of grace of God or “Pushti Marg.”
According to Vallabhacharya’s philosophy, as with other Vaishnav philosophy, there are also three basic realities: soul, universe, and God. Soul is characteristically not much different than God. However, God or the Supreme Being is believed to be the whole (purna), whereas, individual soul is a part (ansh) of it. Soul, itself, is Brahm with one attribute bliss or happiness (Ānand). It is considered both doer (kartr) and enjoyer (bhoktr). Maya is not regarded as unreal but as real and the power of Ishwar. Ishwar is both the creator and the creation (which includes universe and souls) itself. Brahm desired to become many so He became individual souls and the universe. It is the pure Brahm that is the effect (kārya) and cause (kāran) of this world. According to this philosophy, though the knowledge (gnan) of God is needed, it is the devotion to God or bhakti which is considered as the means of liberation. The philosophy stresses utmost love, devotion (bhakti), activities related to personified God and complete servitude to God rather than aiming the goal for the liberation called “Mukti”. Liberation automatically follows the total surrenderance and devotion. Vallabhacharya’s philosophy considers Brahm as Purushottam (God). Everything that was created from brahm that ultimately ends in the Brahm after dissolution by the time. Souls or living objects are considered as part of Brahm and non-living objects are considered as modifications of Brahm. After death and destruction or dissolution, Soul (jiv) and universe, both mixes with the Brahm. The object of worshiping in this philosophy is Krishna who is considered as Narayan or God himself (Svayam Bhagavan). Krishna is considered as the cause of all avatars including Vishnu. His “Satchitanand” (also called Sachchidananda) form is considered as the Absolute Brahm. His abode is called “Golok” (Goloka) which is consider beyond Vaikunth or Vaikuntha (the abode of Vishnu), Satyalok or Satyaloka (the abode of Brahmā the Creator), and Kailash or Kailas (the abode of Shiv). Thus, God and His abode are considered two separate things. The reason for the creation is considered, according to this philosophy, as no other than the sport (leelā) of Shri Krishna, and is unlike illusion (maya) of Vedanta. The liberation of jiv occurs by God’s grace only, as a result or reward of giving-up of oneself solely with the heart, mind, and body called “Atma-nivedana” and nine kinds of worship called “Navadhā or Nava Vidha Bhakti.”
Tags:Absolute, Advait, Advaita, Ānand, ansh, Atma-nivedana, atmagnan, Avatars, avidyā, bhakti, bhoktr, bliss, Brahm, Brahmā, brahmgnan, brahmsambandh, Brahmvād, cause, chaitanya, Creation, Creator, Darshan, devotee, devotion, dissolution, effect, Gnān, God, Golok, Goloka, Gopis, grace, Hinduism, ignorance, Ishwar, jiv, Kailas, Kailash, kāran, kartr, kārya, Kevala, Kirtan-bhakti, Krishna, Lālji, leelā, liberation, Mahaprabhu, Mārg, maya, Monism, mukti, Narayan, Nature, Nava Vidha, Navadhā, nirākār, nirgun, non-dualism, philosophies, Philosophy, purna, Purushottam, pushti, Pushti marg, Pushti Swaroop, realities, Sachchidananda, sambandh, Satchitanand, Satyalok, Satyaloka, sevā, Seva Bhakti, Shad Darshan, Shankaracharya, Shiv, Shri, Shuddhadvait, Shuddhadvaita, smaran, soul, souls, Suddha, Supreme Being, Svayam Bhagavan, universe, Vaikunth, Vaikuntha, Vaishnav, Vallabhacharya, Vedānta, Vishnu
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies, Shuddhadvaita philosophy | Comments Closed
Friday, June 11th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Achintya Bhedabheda philosophy (contd.)
Achintyabheda-bheda of Chaitanya (contd.):
Chaitanya tradition believes in Krishna as the source of all the incarnations of God. Krishna is worshiped as the Supreme Absolute Truth. The object of worship was still Krishna but as God Himself (Svayam Bhagwan) and not as one of the avatars. Krishna is also seen even as the source of Vishnu and not as his avatar – a different or newer than traditional type of understanding of that time. Similarly, Radha is viewed as the source of all other Shaktis, including Lakshmi and Sita. In other words, Lakshmi and Sita are viewed as avatars of Radha. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself was later on viewed as an avatar of Krishna and is worshiped as such.
Krishna is worshiped as Svayam Bhagwan as per Shrimad Bhagwat Puran and Shri Bhagwad Gita. Ramanujacharya’s and Madhavacharya’s tradition view Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu. Radha and Sita are viewed as avatar of Lakshmi.
“Ete cha amsha-kalāh pumshah Krishnas tu Bhagwan svayam indrāri-vyākulam lokam mridayanti yuge yuge ||” (Shrimad Bhagwat Puran: 1.3.28) Meaning, “Although all of the previously mentioned (in shlok 26, 27) innumerable incarnations and descendants (rishis, manus, demigods, descendants of manus, prajapatis, etc.) of Hari are either portions or sub-portions (amsha-kalāh) of Purush (Krishna), but, He Himself (Svayam Bhagwan), appears from time to time or periodically (yuge yuge) to destroy (mridayanti) the enemies of devas or good people (indrari – meaning, bad people or enemies of devas like Indra, also known as Asurs) causing trouble or agitation on this earth or mrityulok (lokam).”
“Arjun uvācha, Param Brahm param dhām pavitram paramam bhavan purusham sāsvatam divyam ādi-devam ajam vibhum ahus tvam rishayah sarve devarshir nāradas tathā āsito devalo vyasah svayam chaiva bravishi me ||” (Bhagwad Gita: 10. 12,13) Meaning, “Arjun said, You are param brahm – the ultimate abode (dhām), the purest (pavitram), transcendental (paramam) divine resting place or lok (bhavan); eternal (sāsvatam) divine (divyam) purush; the original God (ādi-devam), the unborn (ajam) Lord or manifestation (vibhum); that is what all the rishis and the demigod of all rishis (devarshi) Narada, Asit, Deval, Vyas personally say about You. And now You are confirming me the same as it is.”
Chaitanya strongly believed in chanting or singing (kirtan) the holy name of God – Shri Krishna. He believed that the holy name of God is also an incarnation of God, but in sound form. He believed that since God is the absolute whole, there is no difference between His holy name and His transcendental form. By kirtan bhakti, chanting the holy name of God, one can directly associate with God through sound vibrations. He describes three stages of development: 1. Offensive stage, in which one may desire all kinds of material happiness. 2. Clearing stage, in which, one becomes clear of any material contaminations. 3. Transcendental stage, in which, one attains the most desired position of loving God, the highest position of perfection of human beings.
In Chaitanya’s Bheda-Abheda philosophy, God and His creation or cosmic manifestation (also known as maya, power, or “Shakti”) though look different, are one, meaning they have “Sun and Sunshine” relationship. The difference among God and His creation is that though both being the same God has the supreme control over His creation. Just as Sunshine cannot exist without the Sun, the creation cannot exist without God. In the similar way, according to this philosophy, jivas (living beings), as being considered as a part of the creation, are similar but different from the God in the extent, power, and potential. Though, different avatars are not considered different than God.
After Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the tattva-vada (philosophical aspect of Hinduism) was declined to the bhakti-vada (devotional aspect of Hinduism). Devotion to God was more stressed than going into the ontological detail of the philosophy, since, no scholars thought of possibilities of more ontological elements or realities. They also stopped at three ontological elements or realities (tattvas), namely, God, creation, and souls.
Tags:abode, Absolute, Achintya, amsha-kalāh, are one, Arjun, Asit, Asurs, Avatars, Bhagwad, Bhagwan, Bhagwat, bhakti, bhakti-vada, bhavan, Bhedabheda, Brahm, chaitanya, chanting, Darshan, demigods, Deval, devarshi, devas, dham, divine, elements, eternal, Gita, God, Hari, incarnation, incarnations, Indra, indrari, jivas, kirtan, Krishna, Lakshmi, lok, lokam, Lord, Madhavacharya, Mahaprabhu, manifestation, manus, maya, mridayanti, mrityulok, Nārada, ontological, Param, philosophies, Philosophy, prajapatis, Puran, Purush, Rādhā, Ramanujacharya, realities, Rishis, Shad Darshan, shakti, Shaktis, Shlok, Shri, Shrimad, singing, Sita, Supreme, Svayam, tattva-vada, tattvas, though look different, transcendental, Truth, Vedānta, Vishnu, Vyas, worship, yuge
Posted in Achintya Bhedabheda philosophy (contd.), Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Monday, May 10th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Mimamsa and Vedanta:
Purva Mimamsa (Mimamsa):
Mimamsa is also known as Purva Mimamsa, as against Uttara Mimamsa. Mimamsa was developed by rishi Jaimini and was described in his text “Mimamsa Sutra.” Mimamsa means detail investigation or analysis of the subject. According to Mimamsa, the correct performance of the Vedic rites or rituals is the means of salvation. It discusses in detail the nature of ritual obligations (karma-kānda) and ethical and moral duties (dharma) based on correct interpretation of the scriptures. It deals with linguistic methods. It describes critical analysis and explanations of scriptural texts – words, sentences, and the language as whole. We can say that, like Nyaya (system of logical analysis) and Vaisheshika (system of particles and cosmic analysis), Mimamsa is a creditworthy ancient Hindu scientific system of linguistic analysis for the study of scriptural texts. When any ritualism over the time becomes monotonous and meaningless, that is, losing its original meaning, the further detailed study and reanalysis of it is surely warranted. The origin of Mimamsa was timely when the Vedic system of ritualism was marginalized by many religious, historical, and political factors. Mimamsa has tried to reestablish the validity of Vedic ritualism portion which had become monotonous and meaningless over the time. For that, Mimamsa has used the science of Nyaya system for its Vedic interpretation. Mimamsa believes not in proving the truth of the knowledge rather in disproving the falsity of the knowledge. Just take out the untruth from a system, and what remains is the truth.
Mimamsa has gone in every detail of the meanings of the words rather than sentences of the Vedic literature and the actions prescribed by them. In this manner it has emphasized more of the “yāgnic karmakānds”, leaving behind the essence of knowledge contained in Upanishads – the end parts of the Vedas for the Vedanta philosophy to be originated in future. Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa never contradict with each other.
Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta):
Vedanta marks the “trivenisangam” – meeting point of three understandings of the Vedic scriptures, namely, pantheistic understanding of Vedic Arya society, atheistic understanding of Buddhism and Jainism, and monotheistic understanding of mainstream Hinduism. It also marks the beginning of the separate identification of Brahm and Parabrahm. Vedanta means the end (“anta”) part of the Vedas. The philosophies based on the end part of Veda are known as Vedanta philosophies or in short “Vedanta”. Thus, Vedanta is not just one philosophy but the group of philosophies that include Advaita (Non-Dualism), Vishishtadvaita (Qualified Non-Dualism), Dvaita (Dualism), and other philosophies having the same common source. Vedanta is also called Uttara Mimamsa, because the term Vedanta had become almost synonymous to Advaita Vedanta philosophy of Shankaracharya. All Vedanta philosophies are developed around the teachings of Upanishads and Aranyakas rather than the hymns (mantras) and the ritual parts (karma kānds) of the Vedas. The texts “Vedanta Sutras” or “Brahm Sutras” were composed by rishi Bādarāyan, also known as Vyasa. According to some Vedanta there is one Absolute Reality called “Brahm.” According to other Vedanta the Absolute Reality is called “Parabrahm,” “Purushottam,” or “Narayan.” Other realities are merely an illusion, like a dream, meaning, not the permanent. The object of life is to realize that Truth by knowledge, intuition and experience. According to Vedanta, Brahm is all pervading, (sarva-vyāpak), omnipresent, the cause of all (sarva-kāran), supporter of all (sarvādhār), beyond any qualities or attributes (nirgun), non-dual (advaita), untainted or without any impurities of maya (niranjan), the all-doer (sarva-kartā) yet appear to be non-doer (akartā) (meaning, kartā thakā akartā), and without any worldly attributes but possessing divine attributes. By describing Brahm having no attributes the followers of some Vedanta (Vedantis or Vedantists), believe that Brahm is “nirākār” or formless. By describing Brahm having no worldly attribute doesn’t mean Brahm do not have any form. In the same scriptures Brahm is described to have divine attributes, “divya sākār” form. In fact the scriptures describe Brahm having two forms at the same time, one impersonal and the other personified. When Brahm is described as the abode of God and supporting brahmands it is described as impersonal. When Brahm is described as the consort, “shakti”, companion, best Bhakta, or humble servant of God, it is described to have personification.
This is, in short, about the six basic philosophical systems of Hinduism. They were developed on different bases of the same original authentic Vedic scriptures in such a way that they become complementary to each other. Sankhya took care of the psychological or thinking aspect of the Vedic knowledge while Yoga took care of the physiological or behavioral aspect of the Vedic knowledge; Nyaya took care of the logical aspect of the Vedic science while Vaisheshika took care of the physical aspect of the Vedic science; Purva Mimamsa took care of the ritual aspect of the Vedas while Uttar Mimamsa took care of the intellectual aspect of the Vedas. The beauty of Hinduism is that, any of its six systems never contradicted to each other instead they added to each other in understanding the “Truth” or “Absolute” of Hinduism. Even though having total diversity in understanding and in practice, Hinduism has remained one religion and has flourished under one umbrella of main stream Hinduism. This is probably, due to its inherent belief in tolerance and freedom – 1. Freedom of religion – freedom of both the aspects of religion: freedom of religious practice and freedom of philosophical thinking. 2. Freedom from worldly attachments – freedom from the cycle of birth and death. Hinduism has always remained open to the mankind. It has never tried to enforce its doctrine on others. On the contrarily it has remained rather more conservatively among the intellectual class, in well control practicing and in letting others learn its Sanskrit language. These could be the two main reasons of its major loss of its lots of wealthy information.
Tags:abode, Absolute, Advaita, akartā, all-doer, all-pervading, anta, Aranyakas, atheistic, Bādarāyan, best Bhakta, Brahm, Brahm Sutras, brahmands, Buddhism, companion, consort, cosmic, Darshan, dharma, divine attributes, divya sakar, dream, ethical, forgiveness, form, formless, freedom, God, Hindu, Hinduism, humble servant, hymns, illusion, impersonal, Jaimini, Jainism, kānds, Karma, karma-kānda, karmakānds, kartā thakā akartā, linguistic, mainstream Hinduism, mantras, maya, Mimamsa, Mimamsa Sutra, monotheistic, moral, Narayan, nirākār, niranjan, nirgun, non-doer, non-dual, Nyāya, omnipresent, pantheistic, Parabrahm, particles, permanent, personification, personified, philosophies, Philosophy, Purushottam, Purva, Purva Mimamsa, Reality, rishi, rites, ritual, rituals, salvation, Sankhya, sarva kartā, sarva vyāpak, sarva-kāran, sarvādhār, Scriptures, Shad Darshan, shakti, Shankaracharya, tolerance, trivenisangam, Truth, Upanishads, Uttar Mimamsa, Uttara, Uttara Mimamsa, Vaisheshika, Vedānta, Vedanta Sutras, Vedantis, Vedantists, Vedas, Vedic, Vedic Arya, Vyasa, worldly attributes, yāgnic, Yoga
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Mimamsa and Vedanta | Comments Closed
Monday, May 3rd, 2010
Shad Darshan – Sankhya and Yoga:
General
Since Hinduism has its base in Vedas and Vedas are considered words of God directly revealed to the great Rishis, Hinduism is not considered as a philosophy. Hinduism is the Vedic way of describing the Absolute Truth. Vedas are considered eternal (without any origin), authorless (apaurusheya – means not the work of mankind or beyond human imagination), and infallible (never wrong). The directly revealed words of God are considered as the form of God. “mada vāni, mada rupam”, meaning, “My words are my form.” It is considered as one of the ways of understanding or claiming the Truth, just like any other religious philosophies. It will be surprising to know that almost all religious philosophies agree to believe that the “Truth” or “Absolute” is one, but it is equally surprising that the claimants or claimers are many! Because, Hinduism is not considered as a philosophy but is considered as the first hand or direct information about the truth, the philosophies developed on the bases of the Vedas – the words of God, are called “Darshans.” Darshans are philosophies – philosophical interpretations about the Truth by the great scholars. Darshans literarily means the views, visions, or philosophies and are also known as “Tattvagnān” (also spelled as “Tattvagyan” or “Tattvajnan”). Hinduism is not the “Darshan” or “Tattvagnān.” “Shad” means six and “Darshan” means philosophy. The six major philosophies of Hinduism developed from Vedas and Upanishads are: Sānkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimānsā (Mimamsa), and Uttara Mimānsā (also known as “Vedanta.”) All these philosophies were basically developed before the Common Era except the few major philosophies based on Vedanta.
Sankhya:
“Sankhya” is the oldest classical philosophical system of Hinduism founded by rishi Kapil. According to Sankhya, there are basically two realities: Prakruti and Purush. Prakruti means the Nature which consists of 24 elements (tattvas). Purush means the essence or the controller of Prakruti. It is ontologically and characteristically distinct from Prakruti and is considered as the 25th element that is transcendental to all other elements. The responsibility of exploring or knowing in detail and further describing the Nature or Prakruti has been taken up by the Science, The responsibility of knowing and describing God or Purush has been taken up by the Religion.
The objective of Sankhya is to obtain discriminative knowledge of the manifest (vyakta) nature (prakruti), the unmanifest (avyakta) nature (prakruti), and the knower (purush). “Tadviparitaha shreyān vyakta-avykta-gna-vignānāt ||” (Sāmkhya Kārikā: 2) According to Sankhya, Vyakta prakruti includes Mahattattva, Buddhi, Ahamkar, five Tanmatra, ten Indriya, and five Mahabhut. Avyakta prakruti is Pradhān. The knower (gnaha) is known as Purush.
Sankhya philosophy maintains multiplicity of Purush. “janana-marana-karanānām pratiniyamādugapatpravruteshcha | Purushabahutvam siddhim traigunyaviparyayāshchaiva ||” (Sāmkhya Kārikā: 18) “Everybody does not born at the same time, does not die at the same time, everybody does not do same activity (karma) at the same time, everybody does activities (pravrutti) according to their psychological state of mind (gunas), such as some do virtuous activities (dharma), some do wicked activities (adharma); some do cultivate detachment from the worldly object (vairagya) some not; some gain knowledge (gyān), some not. These diversities themselves show the plurality of purushas.”
Sankhya does not separate jiv or soul from sharir or the body. It considers jiv or soul as a part of 24 elements of Nature (also called Pradhān Prakruti) because jiv is intermingled or blended with them so closely that it cannot be separately identified. The 24 elements along with jiv are considered as the field called “Kshetra” and Purush is considered as the fielder called “Kshetragna.” They have controlee and controller relationships, respectively. This can be compared to the Dualism. But, the dualism of body and its life force (soul, atma or jivatma) or the dualism of cosmos (Prakruti) and its super-soul (Purush) and not the dualism of body and mind (According to Hinduism mind or antahkaran is part of the body – ontologically same element or reality) as against Monism. In Sankhya, the intellect or conscious is called “mahat” (mahattattva). Sankhya describes three kinds of proofs or evidences called “Pramānas,” namely, “Pratyaksha pramana” meaning direct perception, “Anumāna pramana” meaning logical inference, and “Sabda pramana” means verbal testimony.
Sānkhya is the eyes (ānkhya) to visualize the Truth. The message of Sankhya is to utilized this material world for improving one’s understanding about the Truth, at the same time developing the detachment from it, and hence to uplift the soul considering that this material world is not that important, permanent, or giver of the happiness or the bliss. It can just give comfort at the most. It is called the Nature or Prakruti – the jad (lifeless), aparā (non-transcendental) Prakruti which is “nāshvant” meaning destructible. The real essence is its life force, motivating force, its cause, its controller called Purush, Ishwar, or God. One should cultivate the attachment with the Truth. Sankhya generally believes in unrestricted use of nature or the worldly products of the nature and then either to forget it or to rationalize it to remain permanently detached from it so that one always remains in the state of bliss and avoid pain and sufferings.
In Sankhya, the question of salvation remains open. If Purush is God and Prakruti is His creation then salvation of Purush is out of question. If Brahmand is Prakruti (Pradhān) and its chief controller is Purush and if there is only one brahmand then the separation of Purush from its brahmand happens at the dissolution. But it doesn’t explain multiplicity of Purushas. If there are many brahmands, and hence many Pradhāns then it explains existence of many Purushas. But then it does not explain the supremacy of one God. One needs to add or explain the existence of the supreme reality. If Prakruti is body and Purush is its essence, called Jiv or soul, then it explains many bodies and many souls – a separate soul for each living being. But then the soul becomes the 25th element and what about God? What about salvation? Who gets salvation and who gives salvation? If souls get salvation, then who gives them salvation? The above ontological questions or flaws in Sankhya philosophy creates the necessity of at least one more reality, either soul or God, which is explained by the next philosophy.
Yoga:
Yoga was developed by rishi Pātanjali for creation of the spiritual bonding or union of a soul with the God. But now it has taken a 360 degree turn to help built physical health globally. The principals of Yoga are mentioned in his text of “Yoga Sutra.” Patanjali’s yoga system accepts the principles and concepts of Sankhya about the 24 kinds of physical elements. Patanjali’s Yoga texts (Yoga Shāshtras) go one step further. According to yoga, soul or jiv is ontologically different than the 24 kinds of physical, material, or worldly elements. So soul or jiv can be considered as the 25th element and God automatically becomes the 26th element. God is still maintained superior to all that makes up the topmost transcendental element or fundamental entity constituting the creation. God in Yoga is personified, Supreme, and of the nature of soul, that is, purely spiritual. He facilitates the attainment of liberation of the souls of His devotees. He remains non-doer or “akrtā.” Meaning, He doesn’t do anything directly by Himself and remain detached from its creation. He is called “Ishwar.” In Yoga, Ishwar is described as one, “in whom there is the seed (bij) or source of unsurpassed (nirātishayam) quality of all-knowing (omniscience),” “Tatra niratishayam sarvagnatva-bijam” Meaning Ishwar is omniscient or all-knower (sarvagna) (Yoga Sutra: 1.25) and “Sa purveshām-api guruhu kālenānavachchhedāt” (Yoga Sutra: 1.26) Meaning, “who is Guru (mentor or the ideal) of also ancient ones (primary creators, such as Brahmā and others), for, He is unbounded (pierced) by time (for He has no beginning and end, meaning eternal, whereas others have beginning and end).” Ishwar is “Purush-vishesha” (Godhead) untouched, unaffected, and free from the “klesha” (afflictions), “karma” (deeds or actions), “vipāka” (fruits of the deeds or actions), and “āshaya” (intentions or desires). “Klesha karma vipākāshayair aparāmrushtaha purusha-vishesha ishwaraha” (Yoga Sutra: 1.24). Souls are pure, eternal, immutable, and are countless in number. They remain attached to the world and worldly things. Souls assume innumerable embodied forms in the cycle of birth and death. In Yoga, the intellect or conscious is called “chittva” (chitt). Unlike the unrestricted use of nature in the Sankhya system, Yoga believes in the restricted use of the nature or in the well controlled and willing (not the forceful and against one’s will) suppression (nirodh) of the thoughts (vruttis) of the conscious (chitt). To understand the elements let us take only one kind of element, say the “Pruthwi” element. It consists of particulate form of more than 112-118 elements of the periodic table. Yoga also describes perceptions, but only of two kinds: “Savikalpa” meaning relative and “Nirvikalpa” meaning absolute perception.
In Yoga, Ashtang Yoga or meditation (dhyān) is used as the means of communion with the Divinity or God. Divinity or self is the object of meditation. Yoga recommends considering the soul, jiv or atma as the distinct (chaitanya) entity from the physical or worldly (lifeless) objects or entities and to develop “Atmabhāv” or “Atma-realization”; and then to worship Paramatma (God) who has definite form (sākār). If we have a physical form, then God has to have, physical but divine (divya sakar), form otherwise the union cannot be strong and fruitful. This is called “sajātiya” union, meaning the union “of a kind” or “of the same kind,” because, Soul and God both are believed to share ontologically common traits. The message of Yoga, as compared to Sankhya, is not to utilize this material world at all or at the minimum necessary level to keep one’s body, mind, and soul healthy and long-lasting keeping in mind that it is just the vehicle in developing the union with the Truth called God or Narayan and attaining the liberation.
Thus, Yoga emphasizes for spiritually leveling or uplifting the “Atma to God” or “Jiv to Shiv (God)” or “one eternal to another eternal” (shāswat) objects, rather than downgrading oneself with the worldly, material, destructible (nāshvant) objects by thinking or being as a part of a physical elements. If a person thinks him or herself as a part of the material world and worships God then his or her union or bonding with the God does not become complete, strong, and permanent. There always remains a flaw or hanging sward over that union and ultimately it breaks with even a trivial reason.
Yoga philosophy explains three basic or fundamental realities and salvation of souls, but it creates one more issue. If one understands Ishwar from Yoga only, being defined as Purush form, God as a person gets many limitations in understanding. One cannot get it how personified God can be all-knower or omniscient (sarvagna), all-controller, inner-guide of all (sarva antaryāmi), all-pervasive (sarva vyāpak), present everywhere at the same time (omnipresent) and absolutely perfect (paripurna).
Yoga was meant for the union of the atma (self or soul) with Paramatma (God) and the object of meditation was self or God. But in modern period of times, the object of meditation is changed from the divinity to diversity and yoga has just remain one of the means of attaining or maintaining well being of the body only, not even of mind and the soul.
Tags:Absolute, akartā, all-controller, all-knower, all-pervasive, ānkhya, antahkaran, Anumāna, apaurusheya, āshaya, ātmā, Atma-realization, Atmabhāv, bij, body, Brahmā, chaitanya, chitt, chittva, conscious, cosmos, Darshan, Darshan (Philosophy), dhyān, Divinity, divya sakar, Dualism, elements, eternal, God, Godhead, Guru, Hinduism, inner-guide, intellect, jiv, jivatma, Kapil, Karma, klesh, klesha, Kshetra, Kshetragna, lifeless, Mahat, Mahattattva, meditation, Mimamsa, mind, Monism, nāshvant, Nature, nirātishaya, nirātishayam, nirodh, Nirvikalpa, Nyāya, omnipresent, omniscience, omniscient, Paramātmā, paripurna, Pātanjali, Pradhān, Prakruti, Pramānas, Pratyaksha, Pruthwi, Purush, Purush-vishesha, Purva Mimānsā, rishi, Rishis, Sabda, sajātiya, sākār, salvation, Sankhya, sarva antaryāmi, sarva vyāpak, sarvagna, Savikalpa, Shad, Shad Darshan, sharir, Shāshtras, shāswat, Shiv, soul, Tattvagnān, Tattvagyan, Tattvajnan, tattvas, transcendental, Truth, Upanishads, Uttara Mimānsā, Vaisheshika, Vedānta, Vedas, vipāka, vruttis, Yoga, Yoga Sutra
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Sankhya and Yoga | Comments Closed
Darshan (Philosophy) XXXIV
Friday, July 2nd, 2010Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Nota Bene II
We are asking so many questions about God, but can we ask just a few questions for ourselves? Do we really believe in God? If we really believe in Him, then we wouldn’t be doing what we are doing now. If He really comes in front of us, then we would not be treating Him as we are treating Him now when He is not present in front of us. If He really comes here and sees us doing what we are not supposed to be doing, then would He be proud of us after all His teaching and preaching?
Questions to ask for ourselves:
If we really believe in Him, then have we ever tried to achieve a few good qualities of Him? If we believe in humanity, then how come we, at times, become inhumane to others? We should not be asking for death of others, as in case of death sentence, for the death of our loved ones. God never preached an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather He taught us for forgiveness. How can we ask for forgiveness from Him, if are not willing to forgive others? If He is merciful, then why we do not show mercy to others? Why we hurt others or kill them – doesn’t matter if they are animals or humans, friends or foes, rich or poor, good or bad, justified or unjustified, for good or for bad. If we believe Him as the judge of everyone then why are we judging others? If we believe He does justice to others, then how can we do injustice to others? If we believe He is the boss, then why we take His law in our hands and try to be bossy on others. If we know He has tolerated and suffered for others and is still doing so, then why we are not so tolerant to others. Why we bother whom, why, and how others worship to Him, if we are not sure for ourselves why, how, and whom we worship. If we cannot develop any of His good qualities in us, then how can we expect Him to enjoy our company in His abode? If we firmly believe in Him, then why do we have doubt in Him? If we believe in Him then why do we have double standards – one for us and one for others; or why do we have triple standards for our own self – for thinking something else, saying something else, and doing something else?
Lastly, a few words about the science:
Let’s ask a few questions about the science and religion. Has anyone heard any scientists saying, “I study and teach science, astronomy, or physics in college and university, but I do not believe in black hole,” or “I do not believe that black hole exists.” “Well, Gravity is Gravity, but, I believe in Newton’s Gravity and do not believe in Einstein’s Gravity.” “I teach solar system, but I do not believe that the sun is at the center.” “I do not believe that the earth is round. I personally believe that the earth is flat.” Well, this happens in case of religion and religious philosophy. One may hear, among religious philosophers, saying that, “I study and teach religious philosophy, but, I do not believe in God or in His existence.” “I teach religion but I do not believe in Western God. I believe in Eastern God.” “I preach about the religious practices and commands of God to others, but, I personally do not believe in strictly following them.” In science the measures used, for example, of time, length, volume, mass, etc., are standard: nationally and internationally, globally and universally, for the scientists and for laymen, for poor and rich, or for believers and for non-believers. Well, for religion, the measures or ethical and moral do’s and don’ts, such as, not to steal, not to deceive, not to adulterate, not to gain or use wealth in wrongful way, to do humanitarian or charitable work, etc. are all relative, never absolute or neutral. They change according to the person, time, circumstances, creed, greed, wealth, color, race, gender, sexual orientation, and individual preferences. We see double or triple standards for ourselves and for others, for believing, preaching, and practicing. We talk about the Truth but we try to hide the truth. The science proposes and publishes theories, but never impose upon others to believe them. Whichever theory is true would be survived in the harsh experimental testing and rigorous argumentative discourses and debates and then would be accepted widely until it is disproved by another theory that would be more truthful, veridical, and realistic. Science is open to accept the truth and is also open to reject the un-truth. In case of religion, it is not like that. God’s words are all revealed in the scriptures but we want, to believe and interpret them, subjectively, according to our own will, likings, preferences, or necessities. Not only that we want to promote and impose upon others what we believe is true, simply because of our deep faith and love in ourselves. In religion, we are not open to accept criticism, nor are we willing to accept other beliefs simply because we do not know the truth. Until then belief simply remain as a belief. These are the differences between trust in the science and faith in the religion. For the majority of people, in the current era of modernization, religion has remained the subject of belief and discussion only, whereas, science is becoming day by day the subject of trust. The root cause of the difference is in the application or practicing. Whatever the science says people apply and whatever religion says people are reluctant to put into practice.
Why the science and spirituality do not go together? Why religions shy away from the science and why many scientists do not believe in God? Spirituality is based on the faith while science is based on the facts. Spirituality has no limitations, science has limitations. Spirituality thinks farther and faster but philosophically, science thinks comparatively nearer and slower but firmly. We can say that spirituality is far-sighted, science is near-sighted. If we believe in God, then we should not have to worry even for science. Science can make us untrue but not the god. If we worry about the science, then in fact we are worried about ourselves, about the philosophies that we have created, about the understanding of the scriptures that we have interpreted, and about the explanations of God that we have enforced to or imparted upon others, that we might be disproved otherwise by the science. If we do worry, then believe that, God also worries with us. If God doesn’t worry then why should we worry at all? Shouldn’t we be that courageous or confident? Science is not our enemy. Science is our friend helping us to understand the truth, to correct us if we are doing anything mistakenly. Are not we supposed to be using the science to explore the Truth, to propagate the Truth, and to keep us alive and healthy for long to enjoy the bliss of the Truth? Science and spirituality go together and cannot be separated from our lives. As religious people, we might think that science is our enemy, but on the contrary, science is our rival in searching for the truth. So, let it race and go deeper and deeper. It will ultimately help us. Ultimately, a day will come when science will also be ineffable and say, “Truth is there, but we are incapable to describe it.” “Not this, not this,” as it is said for God in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, “Neti, Neti” meaning, “this is not the Truth, the Truth is still beyond – beyond our reach, beyond our description, and beyond our understanding.” God is indescribable.
Tags:a tooth for a tooth, Absolute, an eye for an eye, animals, application, astronomy, bad, belief, believe, believers, believing, Black Hole, bliss, boss, Brihadaranyaka, charitable, circumstances, color, commands, Concluding comments, confident, courageous, creed, criticism, Darshan, debates, discourses, discussion, disproved, do’s and don’ts, double standards, Earth, enemy, enforced, ethical, experimental, explanations, facts, faith, far-sighted, foes, forgiveness, friend, friends, gender, globally, God, good, gravity, greed, humanitarian, humanity, humans, hurt, imparted upon, impose upon, indescribable, ineffable, inhumane, injustice, internationally, interpret, interpretations, judge, justice, justified, laymen, length, liking, love, mass, measures, merciful, mercy, modernization, moral, nationally, near-sighted, necessities, Neti, neutral, non-believers, Nota Bene, person, Philosophy, physics, poor, practice, practicing, preaching, preference, preferences, promote, race, realistic, relative, religion, religious practices, rich, rival, science, Scientists, sexual orientation, Shad Darshan, spirituality, standard, subject, subjectively, sun, testing, time, tolerant, triple standards, trust, Truth, truthful, understanding, universally, unjustified, Upanishad, veridical, volume, wealth, will, worry
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Nota Bene II | Comments Closed