Posts Tagged ‘time’
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
Thursday, July 1st, 2010
Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Conclusion II
In conclusion, all of the above philosophies of Hinduism describe about the fundamental realities, from one, two, three, or five, and their relationships with each other. We can reduce all the realities, before the creation, to just one reality – God. But then we cannot explain all the realities that are in existence after the very first creation. The creation itself is a reality. We have to explain everything based on the minimum possible number of fundamental realities considering all the past, present, and future scenarios of existence. Even scientists have difficulty in reducing everything to just one particle and one force.
All philosophies agree that the Supreme Being is one, unique, incomparable, and unparalleled, who is conceived or understood as the perfect, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, creator, source, and controller of the universe, the cosmos, and everything. He is eternal, without beginning and end, forever stable, and unchanging. He is beyond time, space, deeds, and material world of maya. He is Soul of the souls and God of the gods. In Hinduism, He is known as Paramatma, Parabrahm, Purushottam, or Narayan. “Parabrahm” is so named because it is beyond or transcendental to Brahm (Param Brahm).
Brahm or the Abode of Parabrahm (God) is another reality which is penultimate to Parabrahm. Initially Brahm and Parabrahm were inferred as one reality, but later on it was clearly understood that Parabrahm and Brahm, God and His abode, cannot be just one reality. They are two different realities. Scriptures have described some of the characteristics exclusively for Parabrahm that cannot be applies to Brahm or any other realities. Parabrahm is the Supreme Being – the topmost creator, controller, and the essence of all. Parabrahm is described as the soul (shariri) of Brahm (sharir). Brahm is described as the body (sharir) of Parabrahm. Just as body (sharir) and soul (shariri) seems to be one, Brahm and Parabrahm were also understood to be one reality. But, they are not one and the same entity. Parabrahm can sustain without Brahm, but Brahm cannot sustain without Parabrahm.
In Hinduism, there is description of a super-soul or universal soul called Purush or Ishwar. In Hinduism, there is a crucial distinction between Purush and Purushottam (God). Ishwar or Purush is the super-soul of brahmand (whole universe). Hinduism describes about many brahmands. It is obvious that if there are many brahmands and each brahmand is governed by its own super-soul, then there are possibilities of existence of many super-souls. Existence of many Purushas is described in Sankhya scriptures and other scriptures like Mahabharat and Purans.
In Hinduism, individual soul is understood as ontologically distinct reality from God, Nature (Prakruti), and other realities. There are many individual souls or inner-self called atma or jiv limited to each mundane physical body. Each soul is separate, distinct, and different than its body. Therefore, bodily relations are simply bodily relations and are limited to the current birth only. The past, present, and future bodily relations have nothing to do with the souls. Once the soul is free from its three kinds of body it gets liberation or salvation. Soul has to be brahmanized (brahmrup) to get ultimate salvation called Atyantik Moksh. For that the living being has to take the shelter of God and completely and unconditionally surrender to Him, who resides forever in His abode and also, as His presence on this earth, in Satpurush (God-realized person or sant), in Satshāstra (Holy Scriptures), and in Satkriyā (pious and virtuous actions). No one has seen God as scientists see or observe tiniest particles or farthest galaxies and quasars. Everything what we know about God is from the holy scriptures. Scriptures have described every tiniest detail and the characteristics of God and His true and the choicest devotee or follower. Hinduism believes in worshiping the present form of God on the earth and that also in the form like us with which we can find some resemblance or similarity, develop intimacy, do some communication, and enjoy the same bliss on this earth and in this very life as we would enjoy in His abode. This also makes sure that what we are getting here, we will be getting there in His abode. Anyway, salvation ultimately is in His presence, in His service, and in His close association whether here or in His abode.
Tags:abode, actions, ātmā, Ātyantik, bliss, body, Brahm, brahmand, brahmanized, brahmrup, Conclusion I, controller, cosmos, Creation, Creator, Darshan, deeds, devotee, distinct, Earth, eternal, existence, force, fundamental, galaxies, God, God-realized, Hinduism, Holy Scriptures, incomparable, inner-self, Ishwar, jiv, liberation, living being, Mahābhārat, material, maya, moksh, mundane, Narayan, Nature, observe, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, ontologically, Parabrahm, Param, Paramātmā, particle, particles, penultimate, perfect, Philosophy, physical, pious, Prakruti, Purāns, Purush, Purushottam, quasars, realities, Reality, salvation, Sankhya, Sant, Satkriyā, Satpurush, Satshāstra, Scientists, Scriptures, Shad Darshan, sharir, shariri, shelter, soul, source, space, stable, super-soul, Supreme Being, time, unchanging, unique, universal soul, universe, unparalleled, virtuous, world
Posted in Conclusion II, Hinduism - Philosophies | Comments Closed
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Swaminarayan philosophy – Moksha
Atyantik Kalyān or Moksha Part II
Dharma, Gnan, Vairagya, and Bhakti coupled with Mahātmya (the knowledge of the greatness and the glory of God) are considered as the pillars of Sanatana Dharma, Ekantik Dharma, or Bhagwat Dharma and have to be achieved to their perfection to transcendent maya and to attain God’s abode. The devotee of God who achieves them to their perfection is called the ekantik bhakta. Such an ekantik bhakta is superior to all other devotees, is dear to God, and is known as the Gnani (knowledgeable) in Bhagwad Gita. “Teshām gnānee nitya-yukta eka-bhaktir-vishishyate | Priyo hi gnāneeno’tyartham-aham sa cha mama priyaha ||” (Bhagwad Gita; 7. 17) Meaning, “Of those, the one with the gnān is the best because he is always engaged in me and is devoted to me alone. I am exceedingly dear to a person with gnān, and he is dear to me.” “Udārāhā sarva evaite gnānee tvātamaiva me matam |”(Bhagwad Gita; 7. 18) Meaning, “They are all indeed noble, but I consider the one with gnān to be my very soul (ātmā).”
Just as Brahm and Parabrahm are two distinct entities, the soul (jiv or atma) and Brahm are two distinct ontological entities. So, no one can be Brahm. Soul can only achieve the highest achievable enlightened state, be like Brahm, and then humbly serve God, but it cannot be Brahm. This is because both the soul and Brahm are two distinct ontological entities. Therefore, leveling with Brahm is the highest desired state. Absolutely no one can be like God. No one can level oneself with Parabrahm (God). Even after achieving the highest level God is always realized and experienced transcendental and most blissful. As one transcends further and further, the Supreme Being seems to be greater and greater, giving the feeling of more and more joy and pleasure that is indescribable. The joy and pleasure of that bliss is like reaching the higher and higher tips of the tallest mountain or going higher and higher, farther and farther deep into the space and observing the universe with our own eyes.
Just as God is free from kāl (time or aging), karma (deeds), and māyā (worldly attachments or ignorance), after death the devotee of God also becomes free from kāl (time or aging), karma (deeds), and māyā (worldly attachments or ignorance) and forever resides in the humble service of God in His abode.
According to the Swaminarayan philosophy, only after realizing Brahm, that is, after becoming “brahmrup” jiv gets true eligibility to worship Parabrahm (God). “Brahm vidāpnoti param” (Taittiriya Upanishad: 2. Brahmvalli Adhyay, 1. Pratham Anuvāk, Shlok-1). It means that, “the one who knows Brahm (Akshar) attains Parabrahm (Purushottam).” One who doesn’t worship Purushottam by becoming “brahmrup” cannot be said to have attained the final or ultimate liberation. “Brahm bhutaha prasannātmā na shochati na kānkshati | Samaha sarveshu bhuteshu mad bhaktim labhate parām ||” (Bhagwad Gita: 18.54) Meaning, “One who has become brahmanized (brahmrup) remains joyful, grieves nothing, desires nothing, and behaves equally with all beings deserves to offer me one’s supreme devotion or bhakti.” Only those devotees who are free of worldly desires are dear to God.
There are and there will be many spiritual souls who have or will attain the highest spiritually enlightenment state known as brahmrup, kaivalya, nirvana, etc. As long as they believe in a single higher authority to guide them it is fine. But if they do not believe in any higher or supreme authority or believe themselves as God or the Supreme, then there will be either no God or there will be many Gods but without any Supreme Being. It is like an institution either without any head or with many heads but no presiding or judging figure to control them. The said institution may last longer and be well organize for sometime but not for many billion years – the age of universe.
Tags:abode, adhyāy, aging, akshar, Anuvāk, ātmā, attachments, Ātyantik, Being, Bhagwad, Bhagwad Gita, Bhagwat, bhakta, bhakti, bliss, blissful, Brahm, Brahm bhutaha prasannātmā, Brahm vidāpnoti param, brahmanized, brahmrup, Brahmvalli, Darshan, deeds, devotees, devotion, dharma, Ekāntik, enlightened, entities, Gita, glory, Gnān, Gnani, God, Greatness, ignorance, jiv, kaivalya, Kal, Kalyan, Karma, knowledgeable, liberation, Mahātmya, maya, moksha, nirvana, ontological, Parabrahm, Philosophy, Pratham, Purushottam, sanatana, Shad Darshan, Shlok, soul, spiritual, state, Supreme, Swaminarayan, Taittiriya, time, transcendent, transcendental, ultimate, Upanishad, Vairagya, Vedānta, worldly
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Moksha - Part II, Navya Vishishtadvaita, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Swaminarayan philosophy – Brahm
Brahm, Akshar, or Aksharbrahm: Part IV
The abode of Purushottam (God) is known as Akshardham. Swaminarayan philosophy describes that, once reaching in Akshardham the souls get another type of body than the worldly body. It is called aprākrut or divine, brahm-like, body called brahmmaya tanu. The souls are now known as Muktas of Akshardham or Aksharmuktas. Because Akshardham is beyond the space, time, karma, and maya, space-time doesn’t reach there, along with that the ordinary light also does not reach there; maya doesn’t reach there, so, maya’s inherent characteristics called three gunas also doesn’t reach there; and karma or deeds doesn’t reach there, so the soul’s destiny or fate is determined by God’s will only. In other words when the soul becomes completely free from these attachments of influencing factors, then only goes to Akshardham. This is the reason why Akshardham or Brahmdham is called in the scriptures as the final destination of the souls. Secondly, because of the above mentioned transcendental nature of Brahm or Brahmdham, there is no aging there, no decaying there, no gender differentiation is there, or not any of the physical worldly characteristics of the body is there. Moreover, material wealth does not reach there, bodily relatives and their relations are not maintained there, worldly sensual pleasures or pain, comfort or sufferings does not reach there.
This abode of God, Akshardham, is filled with cool, extremely bright luminescence of divine light (different than ordinary light) irradiating from Purushottam. Laws of physical sciences, life sciences, social sciences, or any of the worldly sciences doesn’t apply here, only the laws of spiritual science (brahmvidyā) or the laws of the Supreme Being apply here. One can think of any imaginable thing in the Aksharbrahm, but everything would be in the divine form. It is the final resting place of no return for the liberated souls (muktas) where all the souls are equally divine (divya), bright (tejomaya) and luminescent (prakāsh-yukta), equidistant from God, and forever enjoy the bliss of God. All souls here are similar in looks and brightness. There is no age differentiation, gender differentiation, skin-color differentiation, race differentiation, animal or plant (kingdom) differentiation, phylum, class, order, family, genus, or species differentiation among the muktas. They all look like Brahm and Parabrahm. The only difference is ontological difference, which is still maintained. All liberated souls (Aksharmuktas) are equally powerful but not as powerful, potential, and capable as Brahm, and Brahm is not as powerful as Parabrahm (God). God is omnipotent or all-powerful.
The essence of Brahm or Akshar is Parabrahm or Purushottam. Akshar, Brahm or Aksharbrahm is described, in the scriptures, as the body or “sharir” of Parabrahm and Parabrahm is described as “Shariri” or ātmā (soul) of Brahm or Akshar. Both Brahm and Akshar are the terms used synonymously in the scriptures. So, sometimes it is called “Aksharbrahm.” Brahm, Akshar, and Aksharbrahm are the three names of one and same ontological entity. It is described to be Sagun and Nirgun. Sagun (sa + guna, means, with attributes) Brahm has all the worldly attributes, whereas, Nirgun (nihi + guna, means, without attributes) Brahm is transcendental, divine, and without having any attributes. Sagun means gross form of Brahm and Nirgun means microscopic or subtle form of Brahm. Sagun Brahm is larger than even the largest objects combined. Its largeness or magnitude is such that countless brahmands look like mere atoms floating in its sagun form. Nirgun Brahm is subtler than even the subtlest object or an ordinary space in the atom so that it pervades everything. If we see in the eyes of ordinary space (Ākāsh), which is tinier than an atom, there is space everywhere and atoms are very far and wide. If we see in the eyes of superspace (Chidākāsh or divine space), superspace (Chidākāsh or divine space) is everywhere and universes are very far and wide looking merely like atoms such is the vastness of Brahm. Chidakash seems to be exactly opposite of Maya. Scientifically speaking, analogically, if Maya (the avyakrut form of universe and the multiverse) is Black Hole, Chidakash can be analogized as the White Hole, and the Archi Marg (the direct path or highway for the free soul leading to Brahmdham – the highest abode of God connecting Brahmrandhra of the body to the center of Aksharbrahm) can be analogized as the tunnel or the Worm Hole connecting the two.
Secondly, almost hundred year old, Big Bang theory may be true for single universe but the Steady State theory can be applied to the multiverse of Sagun Brahm. Brahm is eternal. It has no beginning and no end. It doesn’t contract or expand. It does not change its appearance, topology, shape, and size over the period of time. It is homogenous and isotropic in space and time. It is uniform in all directions. For the big bang theory, the scientists have few questions, such as, from where the matter came into the fireball, what or which force made fireball to explode, and what was the purpose or reason of creation of the universe from the fireball? The answers to all of these questions can be found from the philosophy of Hinduism even before the big bang theory was proposed.
Nirgun Brahm is all-pervading, subtler than the subtlest. The cool bright luminescence is uniform and homogenous in all directions. It follows the perfect cosmological principle. Brahm has no boundary. It is limitless. The original form of Brahm is described to be the divine personified form which is beyond three types of body (deh), three basic natural qualities (gunas), and three states of body and mind (avasthās) and always remains in the humble service of Parabrahm (God). It is this form of Brahm that a soul has to unite, level, or resemble with and attain the highest enlightened state called Brahmrup or Brahmanized state for salvation. No one can be like Purushottam (God) but one can be and has to be like Brahm for the ultimate liberation (Ātyantik Mukti).
Tags:abode, Akash, akshar, Aksharbrahm, Akshardhām, Aksharmuktas, all-pervading, all-powerful, appearance, aprākrut, Archi Marg, ātmā, atom, atoms, attributes, Ātyantik, avasthās, Avyākrut, beginning, Big Bang, Black Hole, bliss, body, boundary, Brahm, Brahm-like, brahmanized, Brahmdhām, brahmmaya, Brahmrandhra, brahmrup, Brahmvidya, bright, change, Chidākāsh, contract, cool, cosmological, Creation, Darshan, deh, destiny, directions, divine, divine light, divine-space, divya, end, enlightened, essence, eternal, expand, fate, fireball, force, form, God, gunas, homogenous, humble service, isotropic, Karma, liberated souls, liberation, life sciences, limitless, luminescence, matter, maya, Muktas, mukti, multiverse, Nature, nirgun, omnipotent, ontological, ordinary light, ordinary space, Parabrahm, personified, pervades, Philosophy, physical sciences, prakāsh-yukta, principle, Purushottam, qualities, sagun, salvation, Scriptures, Shad Darshan, shape, sharir, shariri, size, social sciences, soul, souls, space, space-time, spiritual science, states, Steady State, superspace, Supreme Being, Swaminarayan, tanu, tejomaya, time, topology, transcendental, tunnel, ultimate, uniform, universe, universes, Vedānta, White Hole, worldly, Worm Hole
Posted in Brahm - Part IV, Hinduism - Philosophies, Navya Vishishtadvaita, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Monday, June 21st, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Swaminarayan philosophy – Brahm
Brahm, Akshar, or Aksharbrahm: Part III
Two aspects of Brahm The scriptures also describe two aspects of Brahm, namely, sagun and nirgun. The sagun and nirgun aspects of Brahm are the special divine powers or potentials of the original form of Brahm. The original eternal form of Brahm is the manifest visible human form of Brahm. The distinction of sagun and nirgun applies only to Akshar, Brahm, or Aksharbrahm. Purushottam is beyond and transcendental to both of them.
Sagun aspect or form of Brahm is extremely large, vaster than the vastest objects combined in the creation. Compared to the vastness of Brahm, infinite number of brahmands (universes) appears to be like dots or mere atoms (anu) compared to each of his pore or a hair follicle (roma). It is not that those brahmands shrunk in their sizes but because of the extreme vastness of Brahm that multiple brahmands appear to be extremely small.
Nirgun aspect or form of Brahm is extremely subtle, subtler than even subtlest object in the creation. It is subtler than even an atom, subtler than even an ordinary space, because it is cause of them. In his nirgun form, Brahm is pure (shuddha), bright (prakāsheyukta), non-associating (asangi), and non-attaching, non-sticky, or non-interacting (nirlepa) with maya and its effects. These are nirgun qualities of Brahm.
Two forms of Brahm
The scriptures have also described two swarups of Aksharbrahm. Swarups are divine forms of onself. These two forms are: Impersonal and Personal. Swarups are like two physical states or forms of the same entity that differs in several of his properties, like different physical states of matter or different physical forms of carbon. But the ontological element (tattva) of both these forms is the same confusing the philosophers. This is the reason why nirākārvādi philosophers (believers of formless or impersonal Brahm) differ from the sākārvādi philosophers (believers of personal Brahm or God). Both forms have been described in the scriptures, but philosophers and their followers couldn’t believe both opposite and contradictory characteristics in the same entity so they gave them preferential treatment and propone one particular form. Shri Swaminarayan (1781-1830) could easily grasp that reality explained to the world.
Having these two contradictory forms of one entity is rather difficult to understand and perceive meaningfully and intellectually. It is like the wave-particle duality of matter, the most puzzling phenomenon in the universe, in which a particle behaves like a wave and wave behaves like a particle. But, it is the widely accepted and proved fact, which can be explained by the quantum mechanics fathered by Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901-1976) by first publishing his theory of uncertainty in 1927.
The same thing is true about Brahm. Shri Swaminarayan explains that, Brahm is nirakar in the sense that it has no māyik trigunātmik ākār or form; instead it has divine Sachchidanand form. Brahm is never described in the scripture as an abstract entity. Brahm is sakar in the sense that he is like a person or personality but in divine sense. Brahm is not like a person having mayik or worldly characteristics, such as, gender difference, aging, external signs of maturity, internal signs of organ systems, personality characteristics, traits, temperaments, behavioral patterns, mood changes, etc.
Brahm serves Parabrahm Purushottam – the Supreme Being, in a two-fold manner.
In his impersonal (amurta) form, he is like the light (prakāshrup) – limitless, and formless (nirākār). Impersonal form is known as ekarasa (homogenous), chaitanya (consciousness), and chidakash (divine-space as against ordinary space). In this form, he is also known as divya (divine) tejomaya (light-like), and Brahm-mahol (abode), and serves God by being God’s supreme divine abode that supports or sustains countless brahmands, akshar-muktas (liberated souls), and Parabrahm (God).
In his personified (murta) form, Aksharbrahm always remains at the service of Parabrahm (God) as His humble servant and never goes away from His eyesight or vision even for a fraction of a second.
Though Purushottam (God) is present everywhere (omnipresent) in His creation, by His inner guiding (antaryāmi), inspiring (prerak), and controlling (niyantā) power, as much as He is present in His Aksharbrahm, He is not present in Prakruti-Purush, Pradhan-Purush, Mahattattva, Virat Narayan, Brahmā, Marichi-like Prajāpati, Kashyap-like Prajāpati, and devatas like Indra, as well as, in Human Beings, animals, birds, insects, plants, and others, respectively. This is known as tāratamya presence of God in His creation.
Purushottam is the cause of Aksharbrahm and Aksharbrahm is the cause of creation. From tiny portion of space (ansh or amsha) of Aksharbrahm Mahapurush is born, which initiates and activates Mahamaya to create countless pairs of Pradhān and Purush. From each pair of Pradhan and Purush, a Virat-Purush (the essence of brahmand), Mahattattva (primordial matter of brahmand), and the whole brahmand (universe) is created. The whole creation is described in detail in Purans and other scriptures of Hinduism.
This Brahmdham or Akshardham, as the abode of Purushottam, is transcendental and beyond even the space-time. The space-time curvature stops there or folds over itself, so that the time (kāl) or the multidimensional and multidirectional space (desh) doesn’t reach there. Universe is limited by the space-time, so that, the nature (maya), and even deeds or actions (karma) doesn’t reach there. Only the souls (jiv or ātmā) free from their three kinds of worldly bodies reach their after becoming brahm-like (brahmrup). Without developing, cultivating, or attaining Brahm-bhāv, (Brahmanization), that is, without becoming brahm-like (brahmrup) even souls cannot reach there and by developing Brahm-bhav even without dying soul enjoys the same bliss and happiness of Brahm and Parabrahm on this very Earth.
Tags:abode, abstract, actions, aging, ākār, akshar, akshar-muktas, Aksharbrahm, Akshardhām, amsha, amurta, animals, ansh, Antaryāmi, anu, asangi, aspects, ātmā, atoms, behavioral patterns, birds, bliss, Brahm, Brahm-bhāv, Brahm-like, Brahm-mahol, Brahmā, brahmand, brahmands, Brahmanization, Brahmdhām, brahmrup, bright, cause, chaitanya, characteristics, Chidākāsh, consciousness, contradictory, controlling, Creation, Darshan, deeds, Desh, devatās, divine, divine-space, divya, duality, Earth, effects, ekarasa, entity, form, formless, forms, gender difference, God, guiding, hair follicle, happiness, Heisenberg, Hinduism, homogenous, human, Human Beings, impersonal, Indra, insects, inspiring, jiv, Kal, Karma, Kashyap-like, liberated, limitless, Mahāmāyā, Mahapurush, Mahattattva, manifest, Marichi-like, matter, maturity, maya, mayik, mood changes, multidimensional, multidirectional, murta, Nature, nirākār, nirākārvādi, nirgun, nirlepa, niyantā, non-associating, non-attaching, non-interacting, non-sticky, omnipresent, ontological element, organ systems, Parabrahm, particle, person, Personal, Personality, personified, phenomenon, Philosophy, physical states, plants, pore, Pradhān, Pradhan-Purush, Prajāpati, prakāsheyukta, prakāshrup, Prakruti-Purush, preferential, prerak, primordial, properties, Purāns, pure, Purush, Purushottam, quantum mechanics, roma, Sachchidanand, sagun, sākār, sākārvādi, Scriptures, servant, Shad Darshan, Shri, Shuddha, souls, space, space-time, Supreme Being, Swaminarayan, swarups, Tāratamya, Tattva, tejomaya, temperaments, time, traits, transcendental, trigunātmik, universe, universes, Vedānta, Virat Narayan, Virat-Purush, visible, wave, wave-particle, worldly
Posted in Brahm - Part III, Hinduism - Philosophies, Navya Vishishtadvaita, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Monday, May 24th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Dvaitadvaita philosophy
Dvaitadvait philosophy of Nimbarkacharya:
Dvaitadvait philosophy is given by Nimbarkacharya (exact date not available). The philosophy believes in the existence of both the duality (Dvaita) and non-duality (Advaita) at the same time, also known as the duality in unity or Dualistic Monism. This is because both the advait and davit characteristics of Brahm are described in Vedas and Upanishads. Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy is a unified approach of Shankaracharya’s Advait understanding of Brahm and Ramanujacharya’s Dvait understanding of Parabrahm (God). Just as Ramanujacharya’s philosophy, Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy also believes in three distinct realities, namely, chit (soul), achit (universe), and Ishwar (God or Parabrahm). Chit means chaitanya, life force, or jiv. Achit means jad or non-living things or the Nature (Prakruti). “Aprakritam prakrit roopakancha, kāla tadachetanam matam | Māyā pradhān ādipadapravachyam, shuklabhibhedashcha sameapi tatra ||” (Vedant Dash-Shloki by Nimbarkacharya: Shlok: 3) Meaning, “Aprakrit, is believed as chit (alive, sentient, and unobservable) form, and Prakrit (universe and its work), Kāl (time), etc. are believed as without awareness or achit (not alive, insentient, and observable) form which are manifestations of Maya, Pradhān, etc. because of the difference in the three qualities (Sattvik, Rajas, and Tamas).” Ishwar (Parabrahm) means Godhead of the universe. “Svābhavatoapasto samasta dosham shesha kalyān gunaikarāshim | Vyohanginam brahm param varenyam, dhyāyem krishnam kamalekshanam harim ||” (Vedant Dash-Shloki by Nimbarkacharya: Shlok: 4) Meaning, “The one who is intrinsically or inherently the ocean of good qualities (kalyānkāri gunas), who is not tainted with any flaws of Maya (Prakruti), and who has held or bore the four divine (nirgun) forms (Vyuhas) upon Himself; who is Lotus eyed (means personal or sākār) and who is desirable or worthy of worshiping, that Parabrahm Shri Hari upon whom we meditate.” In Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy the Supreme Godhead Vishnu is worshiped as Narayan, Mādhav, Gopal, or Krishna. Nimbarkacharya worshiped Shaligram (Shaligrama) as the murti (object of worship) of Vishnu. It is known as Sarveshwar Bhagwan. Shankaracharya worshiped Shivling (Shivalinga) as the murti (object of worship) of Shiv or Shankar. It is known as Maheshwar. Thus, Murti Puja (idol or object worshiping) was there in Hinduism since its very early period. In Shankaracharya’s philosophy Brahm is considered nirakar (without mayik or worldly form) whereas in Ramanujacharya’s and others philosophies God is considered sakar (with divine personified form) and personified. Both forms are described in Vedas, Upanishads, and other Hindu scriptures.
According to this philosophy, chit and achit, both, are different (Dvait or Bhed) than Ishwar in capabilities and attributes or characteristics, but are not different or separate, (Advait or Abhed) from Ishwar in existence; meaning, jiv and nature, both are identical (not completely but partially) with Ishwar. Jiv and Prakruti, both, are Brahmātmaka, meaning, Brahm-like or “Brahm-maya.” “Sarvamhi vigyanamyatoyatharthakam, Shruti-Smrutibhyo nikhilasya vastunaha | Brahmātmakatvaditi vedavinmatam, triroopata apishrutisutra sadhita ||” (Vedant Dash-Shloki by Nimbarkacharya: Shlok: 7) Meaning, “Achit-chit everything is the form of Brahm as stated by Shruti and Smruti shastras. Since they have become Brahmatmaka or Brahm is their essence, they are also reality as stated by Vedas. The three forms or the trio of jiv (bhoktā), prakruti or nature (bhogya), and Ishwar or Hari (niyantra) are realities as stated or confirmed by Shruti shastras.”
Chit and Achit, both, cannot be absolutely identical with Ishwar because Prakruti (Nature) and jiv are not perfect (purna) whereas God is perfect (paripurna). They are also not unrelated or totally different and separated from Ishwar otherwise Ishwar cannot be controller of them. They have to be related in any way. Chit and achit both cannot have separate independent existence from Ishwar’s existence. Chit and Achit both are characteristically distinct realities from Ishwar’s reality. Their union with God makes them similar entity though their characteristics make them separate or individual entities. The difference between the chit and achit realities and Ishwar reality is that, Ishwar has independent existence, whereas, chit and achit have, though separate but dependent, existence on Ishwar. They call this unique kind of characteristic “swatantra and partantra sattābhav.” The separate existence of chit and achit shows their “swatantra sattabhav,” at the same time their dependency on Ishwar for their separate existence shows their “partantra sattabhav.” Ishwar or Brahm is the controller (niyantra or niyantā). His capabilities are unlimited, whereas, the capabilities and the characteristics or attributes of the chit and achit things are different and limited. Chit is the enjoyer (bhokta) and achit is the object (bhogya) of enjoyment. The Dvaitadvait understanding is subtle but a little complicated in understanding. This kind of complex understanding is also known as natural difference-indifference or “swābhāvik bhedābhed.” In simple terms, we can say that the two realities, namely, chit and achit, are separate or distinct but dependent on higher independent reality known as Ishwar. This kind of bhedabhed relationship can be analogized to the relationships or the association of a small country and a large country. Analogize that the small country is Achit, its Governor is its Chit, and the President of the large country is Ishwar. The small country shows “swatantra sattabhav” or sovereignty and independence by having its own Government and at the same time shows “partantra sattabhav” or submission and dependence by having its relationship with the Government and the President of the large country which is the controller of both the countries.
Tags:Abhed, achit, Advait, Advaita, alive, Aprakrit, Bhagwan, Bhed, bhedābhed, bhogya, bhoktā, Brahm, Brahm-like, Brahm-maya, Brahmātmaka, chaitanya, chit, Dash-Shloki, davit, duality, duality in unity, Dvaita, Dvaitadvait, Dvaitadvaita, existence, God, Godhead, Gopal, Hari, Hindu, insentient, Ishwar, jad, jiv, Kal, kalyānkāri gunas, Krishna, life force, Mādhav, Maheshwar, maya, mayik, murti, Murti Puja, Narayan, Nature, Nimbarkacharya, nirākār, niyantā, niyantra, non-duality, non-living, not alive, Parabrahm, paripurna, partantra, perfect, personified, philosophies, Philosophy, Pradhān, Prakrit, Prakruti, purna, rajas, Ramanujacharya, realities, sākār, Sarveshwar, sattābhav, Sattvik, Scriptures, sentient, Shad Darshan, Shaligrām, Shaligrama, Shankar, Shankaracharya, shastras, Shiv, Shivalinga, Shivling, Shlok, Shri, Shruti, smruti, soul, subtle, Supreme, swābhāvik, swatantra, tamas, time, universe, Upanishads, Vedant, Vedānta, Vedas, Vishnu
Posted in Dvaitadvaita philosophy, Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Thursday, May 6th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Nyaya and Vaisheshika:
General
The other two philosophical systems of Hinduism, namely, Nyay (Nyaya) and Vaisheshik (Vaisheshika) are more or less scientific systems developed to understand God and His Creation simply because we cannot fully test or reproduce both of them in our laboratory systems. To understand all that we see, observe, feel, think, and experience with our five senses and four antahkarans (mind) the Vedic Hindu thinkers or philosophers had developed theses two alternative systems in ancient times. Nyay is a system of logic or rules whereas Vaisheshik is system of cosmology or particles (Kan or Kana), though the evolution of universe from Prakruti is elaborately discussed in Sankhya Shashtras. Historians of science have shown unawareness about the contribution of Hindu scriptures in the fields of logic, physics, mathematics, philosophy, language, sociology, psychology, cosmology, etc. or in science in general.
Nyaya:
Nyaya or the system of logic was developed by rishi Gautam. According to Nyaya, obtaining the valid knowledge through logic helps to attain liberation. Nyaya philosophy describes 16 systems or points of understanding, called “Padārtha,” to extract “basic meanings” of any entity. These are: 1. Pramāna (evidences), 2. Prameya (theorem or analysis), 3. Samshaya (doubt or questioning), 4. Prayojana (aim, goal, or purpose), 5. Drashtānta (examples), 6. Siddhānta (conclusion or abstract), 7. Avayava (subdivisions, part, or sections), 8. Tarka (logic or hypothetical reasoning), 9. Nirnaya (descision, final verdict, or settlement), 10. Vāda (doctrine, principle, or arguments), 11. Jalpa (debate, hot discussion), 12. Vitanda (quibble or caviling), 13. Hetavābhāsa (gross purpose), 14. Chhala (fallacy or tricking), 15. Jāti (kind or descent), and 16. Nigrahasthāna (point of defeat). All 16 padarthas are further explored. For example, Nyaya school describes four types of reasoning or evidences (pramāna): A. Evidences in favor of validity of the knowledge are: direct perception (pratyaksh pramana), inference or guess work (anumāna pramana), comparative evidence (upamāna pramana), and verbal or testimonial evidence (shabda pramana). B. Evidences in favor of invalidity of the knowledge are: memory (smruti), doubt (samshaya), errors, variability, or vicissitudes (viparyāya), and hypothetical reasoning (tarka). All kinds of the evidences are further explored. For example: direct perception. It can also be of two kinds: laukika or sādhārana (ordinary or sensory), and alaukika or asādhārana (extra ordinary or extra sensory). Both are further explored. For example, ordinary perceptions can be divided into six categories, namely, auditory, tactile, visual, gustatory, olfactory, and mental. Extra ordinary perceptions are further divided into three varieties: sāmanya-lakshana (common sense or intuition), gnān-lakshana (calculated or knowledge based from the previous experience), and yogaja (ESP). Perceptions are also divided into: savikalpa (relative) and nirvikalpa (absolute).
This is just to have its idea. Voluminous information can be found from the Nyaya texts.
Vaisheshika:
Vaisheshik system was developed by rishi Kanād, from whose name the particles got the name “Kan” or “Kana.” His teaching was that liberation can only be achieved or attained by thoroughly understanding the nature and our existence. Vaisheshika accepts the cosmology or the evolution of the Nature or Universe. Prakruti is considered to be the cause of cosmic evolution. Prakruti has three constituent qualities (guna), namely, sattva, rajas, and tamas in equilibrium. That is why it is also known as “trigunātmikā.” According to Vaisheshika, all objects in nature (Prakruti) are made of tiniest, indivisible, invisible, indestructible, and eternal particles that are neither created nor destroyed (meaning they were there at the beginning of the creation and they will be there at the end of dissolution) and are called “paramānu.” They are like elementary particles of modern physics. Paramanus make anu. Two paramanu make one dvyanuka. Two, three, four, and more dvyanuka make one tryanuka, chaturanuka, and so on. These anu possess continuous vibratory motion which can be regarded as the spin or wave function. These paramanus are distinct from the soul. Each atomic substances has individual (vishesha) characteristics which distinguishes them from other non-atomic substances (dravyas), such as time (kāl), three dimensional space (dig, dishā) (directions or dimensions), soul (ātmā or ātman), and mind (manas). Vaisheshika has definitions for, ākāsh, time, and space. They have no lower constituents, meaning they are elementary. (Vaisheshika Sutra: 2.1.27-31) The qualities of akash are: sound, number, dimension, distinctness (individuality or separateness), conjunction, and disjunction. (Vaisheshika Sutra: 7.1.22) Time marks past, present, and future; succession, lateness and earliness. (Vaisheshika Sutra: 2.2.6) Time marks beginning, persistence, and end. (Vaisheshika Sutra: 2.2.9) Space is the cause of directions and dimensions between two objects. Vaisheshika clearly defines and describes the principle of cause (kāran) and effect (kārya).
Time can flow at different rates for different observers. Time and space are not absolute. Space and time are relative. There exist countless universes with their own Brahmā, Vishnu, and Mahesh. The universal is taken to be timeless and ubiquitous. Whatever can be defines with respect to space and time cannot be a universal. The processes that mark the passage of time on an object would thus be relative. It is only the universals which are true for all time and space are absolute or transcendental. The only such universals are Brahm and Parabrahm. These ideas are elaborated in the Purans, Agama Shashtras, and in the books such as Yoga-Vashishtha.
Substances can be grouped according to their actions or activities, common characteristics, specific characteristics, and their relationships with the cause and effect. According to Vaisheshika, there are six basic categories (padārtha) associated with reality: dravya (substance), guna (quality or characteristic), karma (motion or actions), sāmānya (common or general), vishesha (specific), and samavāya (inherent or comparative).
Dravyas include 9 basic realities, namely, Pruthwi (earth or solid), Jal (water or liquid), Tej (light or fire), Vayu (air or gas), Akash (ether or void), Desh or Dishā (place or the three dimensional space), Kal (time), Mana (mind), and Atma (soul or spirit).
Seventeen kinds of gunas (qualities or characteristics) of objects are originally described. They are: Rupa (appearance or form), Rasa (taste), Gandh (smell), Sparsh (feel or touch), Sankyā (number), Parimāna (dimensions, size, or quantity), Pruthakatva (individuality, separateness, or isolation), Samyoga or sanjog (conjugation), Vibhāga (parts, divisions, or disjunctions), Paratva (remoteness, farness or superiority), Aparatva (nearness or inferiority), Buddhi (intelligence or judgment), Sukha (happiness or pleasure), Dukha (unhappiness or pain), Ichchhā (desire), Dvesha (aversion or animosity), Prayatna (effort – easy or hard).
Karma means action, activity, motion, or work done. It has four features: Akash (in space or in vacuum), Kāl (time), Dik or Dishā (direction), and Atman (inherent – size, magnitude, etc).
Tags:Agama Shashtras, Akash, alaukika, antahkarans, anu, Anumāna, Aparatva, asādhārana, ātmā, Atman, Avayava, Brahm, Brahmā, Buddhi, chaturanuka, Chhala, cosmic evolution, cosmology, Creation, Darshan, Desh, dig, Dik, Dishā, Drashtānta. Siddhānta, dravya, Dravyas, Dukha, Dvesha, dvyanuka, Gandh, Gautam, gnān-lakshana, God, guna, gunas, Hetavābhāsa, Hindu, Hinduism, Ichchhā, Jal, Jalpa, Jāti, Kal, Kan, Kana, Kanād, Karma, laukika, logic, Mahesh, Mana, manas, Nigrahasthāna, Nirnaya, Nirvikalpa, Nyay, Nyāya, Padārtha, padarthas, Parabrahm, paramānu, Paratva, Parimāna, particles, philosophers, Philosophy, Pramāna, Prameya, pratyaksh, Prayatna, Prayojana, Pruthakatva, Pruthwi, Purāns, rajas, Rasa, rishi, rules, Rupa, sādhārana, sāmānya, sāmanya-lakshana, samavāya, Samshaya, Samyoga, sanjog, Sankyā, sattva, Savikalpa, senses, shabda, Shad Darshan, smruti, soul, space, Sparsh, spirit, Sukha, tamas, Tarka, Tej, time, trigunātmikā, tryanuka, upamāna, Vāda, Vaisheshik, Vaisheshika, Vaisheshika Sutra, Vāyu, Vedic, Vibhāga, viparyāya, vishesha, Vishnu, Vitanda, Yoga-Vashishtha, yogaja
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Nyaya and Vaisheshika | 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