Posts Tagged ‘science’
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
Thursday, July 1st, 2010
Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Nota Bene I
Philosophy is a vision or explanation of the Truth. In the modern times of materialism, industrialism, capitalism, greedism, and superficialism several questions do arise apart from the philosophical views discussed above. The most important and commonly asked question in present time is: Does God exist, or rather, still exist compared to older time of innocence and less materialism? Do we have proof of His existence? If He exists, then why something bad happens to someone who firmly believes in Him compared to the non-believer? If He exists then where does He truly reside? Does He have control over us or do we have gained control over Him, by scientific power, monitory power, political power, or may be by trick? If He has control over us then is He going to keep the control with Him forever even after the great advances of science, such as, cloning, stem-cell research, and creation of living cell in the laboratories? Should we worry about that or about Him? And lastly, do we really have earned that right to ask these questions, especially the last one?
Let’s try to answer these non-philosophical questions of reality about the Reality?
God’s reality
Whether God is real and true, there is one God or many rivals of Him or only someone’s God exists and else’s God doesn’t, all of these questions are truly up to Him to answer or look out. Let’s ask ourselves before asking such questions, are we really ready to take care of His issues? Isn’t He all-capable to respond by Himself? Isn’t it our greatest illusion that we are taking care of His business when we are not even fully capable of taking care of ourselves, our own business, when we are constantly asking for His help or others’ help in our day to day life. So, rather asking just for the sake of asking let us be real and true to ourselves which would be more fruitful and beneficial to us in the path of spirituality.
God’s existence
The true and faithful answer for God’s existence would be that “God exists and still exists.” For someone He may be in the form of the motivating force, vital force, or energy but He does exist. The cosmos is not bare or unattended without the presence of the Supreme Divine Authority. It is definitely controlled and intricate right from the biomolecular or microscopic level to the cosmic level. The highly intricate design of the cell at molecular level and of atom at subatomic level does require a designer and to operate that machinery for the definite purpose does require the intelligence. If anything happens in the universe we do have reason or material explanation to believe it on the name of the natural laws of science. But the universe itself is the phenomenal happening how can we explain its reason? Without the higher or supreme intelligence or authority (not just the force) the existence of everything would not have been possible.
A big question disturbing everybody, “Why something bad happens to me or only me?”
We all believe that, we are all comparatively good people, we may be more or less religious but are, for sure, spiritual or may be believers of God. Then, why something bad happens to us or only us? To understand that, let’s first understand the difference between the understanding of materialists and theists about the phenomenon of happening. Materialistic people understand that if anything happens to us, good or bad, is due to a chance. Spiritual or theist people understand that if anything happens to us, good or bad, is due to God’s will or destiny. God always wants to do good to us. God never does anything bad to anybody. It is never His intention. It means that, whatever bad happens to us must be because of some reason other than God. So, everything cannot be placed on God’s will only. There must be part of our role too. For that, Hinduism has proposed the role of Karma in deciding our own destiny – the importance of good actions and bad actions to make or create our own destiny or fate. Otherwise there wouldn’t be importance of good doings and bad doings. Yet, everything cannot be placed on Karma too? What about if someone is good, does good karma but put oneself in bad place at bad time or reaches at right place at right time? What about if someone is good and one’s intention is good too, but, does something bad unintentionally or unknowingly? So, other than actions (karma or kriyā), there must be some role of other factors too, such as, place (desh), time (kāl), company or association with (sang), command (mantra), bad books or bad media (shāstras), initiation or membership to organization or group (dikshā), and emulation or contemplation of the role model or the chief upon whom one trusts and ponder (dhyān). Now, the question arises that suppose if a good or Godly person, by mistake, knowingly or unknowingly, or circumstantially, has committed any bad action, should such action be pardonable or not? Even the President has an authority to pardon death sentence, then why not God be authorized to do so. For this reason, theists have again placed God’s will at the top. The Supreme Being is the final authority and not the karma or any other influencing factors.
God’s residence
The question is where does He reside in the cosmos or on the earth apart from His abode? Rather someone would ask that where do we keep Him? Let us ask that to ourselves. Do we keep Him on our head, within our thoughts, on our tongue only, within our heart, within our conscience or just in our pocket or pocketbook? Truly speaking God resides in our heart, mind and soul. We are looking for God in the sky but we cannot see Him there. We are looking for God on the earth but we cannot believe Him in the human form. If He would come in non-human form or some alien form would we be ready to believe Him? No, we would be rather scared. So, how can we know Him? God is right in front of us but we are not ready to believe Him. God is in our heart, mind, and soul but we never try to look inside in ourselves. God is not far away from us. Even His abode is not far away from us. It is not up above in the sky nor is it down in the center of the earth. It is right within us, not even an atom’s distance away from us. We need those kinds of spiritual eyes or vision to see it.
Proof of His existence
If we have kept Him present forever and uninterrupted in our conscience then the solid proof of His existence is right there. Then probably the question of His existence wouldn’t even arise in our minds. Our actions will speak for our proof of God. We will get the answers to the above and all of the questions arising in our mind about God. God is right there, not outside but within, in our inner self – in our conscience. If He is not there, then where else He could be? He would just be in the books of philosophies in the libraries or in the classrooms for study.
God’s control
If God is the Supreme Being, then we do not have to wory for losing His control over to the science. If He is the Creator, then He, for sure, knows about the Destruction or Dissolution, and even for the Recreation of the worlds! He must have planned or, if not, then He must have the capability to do that. Otherwise He wouldn’t be at that Supreme position. He has smartly given finite lifespan or lifetime to every living and non-living things in His creation. He has made everything dependent upon Him. He must have kept that key with Him. Rather than God controlling us, we are taking control over ourselves, over our fellow brothers and sisters, over their wealth, their property, their land, and their freedom in the name of God and in the name of religion – some might have done in the past and some may doing now. And, if we do not stop this now, then somebody else will be doing in the future. Among these where is God’s control? Who is the real controller – God or us?
Tags:abode, actions, alien, all-capable, association, atom, authority, bad, bare, believers, biomolecular, business, capitalism, cell, chance, chief, circumstantially, cloning, command, company, Concluding comments, contemplation, cosmic, cosmos, Creation, Darshan, Desh, designer, destiny, destruction, dhyān, dikshā, dissolution, divine, Earth, emulation, energy, exist, existence, faithful, fate, force, form, God, God’s will, godly, good, greedism, group, happening, Hinduism, human, illusion, industrialism, initiation, intelligence, intention, intricate, Kal, Karma, knowingly, kriya, laboratories, level, level. Design, living, living cell, mantra, materialism, materialists, membership, microscopic, mistake, molecular, monitory, motivating, natural laws, non-believer, non-human, non-living, Nota Bene, organization, pardonable, people, phenomenal, Philosophy, place, political, power, real, Reality, Recreation, religious, research, role model, sang, science, scientific, Shad Darshan, shastras, sky, spiritual, spirituality, stem cell, subatomic, superficialism, Supreme, Supreme Being, theists, time, trick, true, Truth, unattended, unintentionally, unknowingly, vital force
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Nota Bene I | Comments Closed
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Conclusion I
All of the above philosophies of Hinduism have one thing in common. They are all derived from and consistent with the triad of authentic Hindu scriptures known as Prasthan Trayi, namely, Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita, and Brahm Sutra. They include the essence of all the ancient Hindu scriptures, namely, Vedas, Upanishads, various sutras, various smrutis, all the Purans, Mahabharat, and Ramayan. Number wise Hindu scriptures are not just a few texts but they are hundreds in numbers, consisting of hundreds of thousands of verses (shloks) and short sentences (sutras), and all of them are in Sanskrit or other vernacular languages derived from Sanskrit. It is difficult to study single-handedly and understand them all individually. This explains why there are many interpretations, explanations, and commentaries just about one single Truth and the five fundamental eternal realities in Hinduism.
The beauty of Hinduism is that it allows complete religious freedom at the same time teaches to develop the utmost tolerance for others’ belief. This is exactly opposite of bullying. Smruti shastras allow devotees to worship their own deity as God or demigod (devata) and to follow their own choice of scriptures according to their own level of understanding and intelligence irrespective of the Ultimate Truth. Yet, at the same time it also teaches to keep in mind that one is allowed to compare anything or anybody with God but one can never compare God with anything else that is lower than the level of God in His whole creation, not even with the transcendental and penultimate reality Brahm – the abode of God. This was the understanding of Madhavacharya when he placed Lakshmi at the little subordinate or subservient level to that of Narayan (God). Hinduism tells the truth to the followers of any deity or any God other than the Supreme Being, Parabrahm Purushottam Narayan, cautioning them, that whosoever follows other than Purushottam Narayan will be led to that particular person’s or deity’s own destination depending on that person’s or deity’s own power and capability but not the final resting place or the ultimate destination of the most powerful Supreme Being. The ultimate destination or the final redemption can only be reached by following the Truth, the true Supreme Being, or by achieving the truly ultimate knowledge. Hinduism tells never to follow blindfolded. It says to use one’s own intelligence and judgment objectively and see the behavior, level, and achievement of the Guru (guidance counselor), his Guru or master, and his students or followers. It also advises to disregard the social or worldly etiquettes, manner, or any other external variables of the true Guru in learning the brahm-gnan. Hinduism helps also by providing all the necessary guidance and guidelines to understand, know, and follow the Truth and at the end leaves the responsibility of taking final decision on the individual. Hinduism never forces anybody in following the religion, it just tells about the Truth. Shad Darshan shows the science of how to know the Truth. No matter whom one follows, no matter which path one follows, and no matter which decision one takes, it always advises never to lose one’s spiritual joy – the bliss of brahmanized state (brahmpanu) or the eternal happiness one gets by having union or close association with Brahm or Brahmanized sant or satpurush.
The Satyam (the truth), Shivam (the greatness), and Sundaram (the beauty) of Hinduism is that leaving aside its religious and philosophical aspects, and keeping one’s own faith or belief in one’s own religion, religious practices, religious philosophy, and the choicest deity of worshiping, one can still study, understand, and practice the universal, natural, and humanitarian aspect of it to bring the mental peace, world peace, and the heaven, paradise, or swarg on the earth.
Tags:abode of God, ancient, aspect, beauty, belief, Bhagwad Gita, blindfolded, bliss, Brahm, Brahm Sutra, brahm-gnan, brahmanized, brahmpanu, bullying, commentaries, Conclusion I, Creation, Darshan, deity, demigod, devata, devotees, Earth, essence, eternal, etiquettes, explanations, external, faith, Final redemption, followers, fundamental, God, Greatness, guidance, guidance counselor, guidelines, Guru, happiness, heaven, Hindu, Hinduism, humanitarian, intelligence, interpretations, joy, judgment, Lakshmi, languages, Madhavacharya, Mahābhārat, manner, master, mental peace, Narayan, natural, objectively, Parabrahm, paradise, penultimate, philosophical, Philosophy, Prasthan Trayi, Purāns, Purushottam, Rāmāyan, realities, religion, religious, religious freedom, religious philosophy, religious practices, Sanskrit, Sant, Satpurush, Satyam, science, Scriptures, Shad Darshan, shastras, Shivam, shloks, smruti, Smrutis, social, spiritual, subordinate, subservient, Sundaram, Supreme Being, sutras, swarg, tolerance, transcendental, Truth, ultimate, universal, Upanishads, variables, Vedānta, Vedas, vernacular, verses, World Peace, worldly, worship
Posted in Conclusion I, Hinduism - Philosophies | 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
Monday, January 11th, 2010
Sharir – 24 Elements (Tattvas)
As we have seen previously that Hinduism believes in the field-fielder (Kshetra–Kshetragna) theory. Prakruti is the field and Purush is its fielder. Similarly, body is a field (kshetra) and the soul is its fielder (kshetragna). According to Sānkhya scriptures, Prakruti or the nature consists of 24 physical entities or elements (tattvas), whereas, Purush, also known as Ishwar, is a quite distinct eternal entity or ontological element (tattva). Similarly, body, being the part of nature, also consists of 24 elements, whereas, soul or jiv is ontologically quite distinct eternal entity from the body. Both, Prakruti or body and Purush or jiv, are characteristically quite different from each other. One is mortal (nāshvant), decayable, destructible, “trigunātmak” (having three gunas or properties of maya), full of ignorance, etc. The other is imperishable or non-aging (ajar), immortal (amar), indestructible (achhedya), indivisible and impenetrable (abhedya), full of knowledge or knowledgeable (gnātā), subtle (sukshma), etc. When jiv behaves as united or intermingled with its body and Purush is intermingled with Prakruti, it is their combined or inseparable form (anvay swarup). When jiv is behaves as quite distinct from its three kinds of body (sthul, sukshma, and kāran) and Purush or Ishwar remain quite distinct from its three kinds of body (virāt, sutrātmā, and avyākrut) body, it is their distinct eternal form (vyatirek swarup).
These 24 elements are as follows:
1. Five gross elements (called Panch-bhuts): Pruthvi, Jal, Tej, Vayu, and Akash. They are explained and translated in English as Earth, Water, Fire or Light, Air or Gas, and Space or Sky, respectively. But this translation is misleading. Rather, they should be translated as they are.
Five Bhuts (pronounced as Bhoots) are five basic structural elements. They are derived from Tāmas Ahamkār – one of the three types of Ahamkārs. The three Ahamkars, namely, Sātvik Ahamkār, Rājas Ahamkār, and Tāmas Ahamkār are created from Mahattattva which is in turn created from Pradhan-Prakruti.
2. Five subtle elements (called Panch-Tanmātrās, Panch–Vishays, or Panch Prāns): Five subtle or microscopic elements are physical elements at the subatomic level, for example, tanmatras, and physiological elements at the bimolecular level, for example, prans.
Five subtle physical elements are: sound (Shabda), touch (Sparsh), sight/light (Roop), taste (Ras), and smell (Gandh). Each subtle element is a part or meter (mātrā) of each gross element. For example, sound (Shabda) is part (matra) of Ākāsh/Vyom and its main receiving organ is ear, touch (Sparsh) is part (matra) of Vayu/Marut/air and its main receiving organ is skin, sight/light (Roop) is part (matra) of Tej/light and its main receiving organ is eye, taste (Ras) is part (matra) of Aapa/Jal/water/liquid and its main receiving organ is tongue, and smell (Gandh) is part (matra) of Kshiti/Pruthvi/solid and its main receiving organ is nose. Similarly, each vishay is carried by each tanmātrā. Thus, tanmatras are akin to carrier particles of science.
Hinduism has also described five functional or physiological processes at the biomolecular level as five subtle elements, which are collectively known as prāns. Five prāns are: Prān (also spelled as Prāna), Apān (also spelled as Apāna), Vyān also spelled as Vyāna), Samān (also spelled as Samāna) and Udān (also spelled as Udāna). Prans as vital processes are as such not physical elements but as life sustaining entities or forms of energies they are also considered as elements. Along with five prāns, five upa-prāns (pronounced as oopa-praans) are also described in Hinduism. Five upa-prans are: Nāg (also spelled as Naga), Kurm (also spelled as Koorma), Krikara, Devdatt (also spelled as Devadatta) and Dhananjay (also spelled as Dhananjaya)
Five Tanmātrās are five basic carrier elements of vishays to their respective senses. Just as panch-bhuts, panch-tanmatras are also derived from Tāmas Ahamkar, but Prāns are derived from Rājas Ahamkar.
3. Five motor or executive organ systems (called Karmendriyas – (Karma-Indriyas): speech organ (Vāk, Vāni, or Mukh), hands or working organs (Pāni or Hasta), legs or locomotors organ (Pād), excretory organ (Pāyu), and reproductory organ (Upastha).
4. Five sensory organ systems (called Gnanendriyas – (Gnan Indriyas): organ for sound (ear – Karna-Indriya), organ for touch (skin – Tvak or Sparsh-Indriya), organ for seeing (Eyes – Chakshu-Indriya), organ for taste (Tongue – Jihvā or Swad-Indriya), and organ for smell (Nose – Nāsikā or Ghran-Indriya).
Ten Indriyas (five types of motor organs and five types of sensory organs) are derived from Rājas Ahamkar.
5. Four intellectual systems or functional operating units (collectively called Antahkaran – antah + karana: inner operative or executive instruments): They are: Man or Mana, Buddhi, Ahamkār, and Chitt. Chitt is equivalent to Mahattattva of the universe. Just as Mahattattva is primordial form of universe, Chitt is primordial form of body. Chitt is first to appear or develop in the body. Ahamkar is derived from Chitt. Ahamkar is of three kinds: Satvik, Rajasik, and Tamasik. Mana is derived from Sātvik Ahamkar. Buddhi is derived from Rājas Ahamkar.
Thus, five bhuts, five tanmatras, ten prans (five prans and five upa-prans), ten indriyas, four antahkarans, and fourteen presiding deities (devatās) of indriyas (namely, Dis, Vāta, Surya, Varun, Ashvins are for gnanendriyas; Vahni, Indra, Upendra, Mrityu, and Prajapati are for karmendriyas; and Chandra, Prajapati, Rudra, Kshetragna are for antahkarans) are all derived from three Ahamkars which in turn are derived from Mahattattva. Thus, Mahattattva is the primordial form of universe. It is like the matter in the fireball from which the whole Brahmānd (Universe) is evolved. This could be the reason why Vedas and Upanishads describe Mahattattva as Hiranyagarbha or the Golden Embryo.
All of the above physical elements that constitute body and universe, according to Hinduism, are part of Maya – one of the five fundamental eternal philosophical elements. The soul or jiv itself makes an ontologically quite distinct fundamental eternal philosophical element. According to Hinduism, all of the above physical elements are considered incapable of doing anything without soul or jiv. And soul or jiv is considered incapable of doing anything without God. God resides in the soul.
Tags:Aapa/Jal/water/liquid, abhedya, achhedya, Ahamkār, ajar, Akash, amar, anvay, apān, bimolecular, body, Buddhi, carrier particles, Chakshu-Indriya, Chandra, chitt, elements, fireball, forms of energies, functional, Gandh Ākāsh/Vyom, Ghrān-Indriya. Antahkaran, Gnanendriyas Gnan-Indriyas, gnātā, Golden Embryo, Hasta, Hiranyagarbha, Jal, Jihvā, jiv, Karmendriyas Karma-Indriyas, Karna-Indriya, Kshetra, Kshetragna, Kshiti/Pruthwi/particle. Prān, life sustaining, Mahattattva, Man, maya, Mukh, nāshvant, Nāsikā, pad, Panch, Panch-bhuts, Panch-Tanmātrās, Panch-Vishays, Pāni, Pāyu, physical, physiological, Pradhan-Prakruti, Prajāpati, Prakruti, prāns, processes, Pruthvi, Purush, Rājas Ahamkār, Rajasik, Ras, Roop, Rudra, Sāman, Sankhya, Satvik, Sātvik Ahamkār, science, shabda, soul, Sparsh, Sparsh-Indriya, subatomic, subtle, Swād-Indriya, swarup, Tāmas Ahamkār, Tamasik, tanmātrā, tanmatras, Tattva, Tej, Tej/light, trigunātmak, Tvak, udān, Upastha, Vāk, Vāni, Vāyu, Vayu/Marut/air, Vishays, vital, vyān, vyatirek
Posted in Hinduism - Body, Tattvas - 24 Elements | 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