Comparative Religion

Tags

god, happiness, hinduism, meditation, prayer, vedanta, well being, wisdom

Someone recently asked me whether I knew of a good book on or about comparative religion. This was akin to asking for a description of the rose – why would I want such a description? I want an experience of the rose – its fragrance, the feel of its petals, and so on, and no amount of description will bring me anywhere close to that experience. What am I to do with the scholarly and knowledgeable information given in articles such as this one here?

In a similar vein, here are two paragraphs from a scholarly work on comparative religion:

Till very recently it was believed that Vedic Hinduism is really the oldest form of Indian religion. But, at the present time, it would not be correct to hold this view. Even at the time of Rgveda, there were…

…

Judaism is roughly found in two phases. First, it was a simple religion of Yahwe, who was essentially a nature-god of thunder and storm. He was regarded as a god and not the only God. At most he was a tribal god who was…

I am sure the author is very knowledgeable, scholarly. I am also sure that for specific purposes such a book would be useful. But if I want to rise above the constant undercurrents of dissatisfaction that I find in me, to rise above my own pettiness, to realize my potential, to “know”, I need something entirely different.

¶

Personally speaking, my need to compare religions is to see whether there is any difference in the spiritual life as I (a Hindu) see it, and the way a Christian or a Muslim would; the way I look upon God, and the way a Christian or a Muslim would.

God and the spiritual life are a matter of experience of the oneness of life, and books like the one cited above don’t convey anything of that sort. However, there are books that do and, collectively, they do speak about what I need to understand.

Here a list of books and articles that I have found useful. They are not all philosophical or religious; I have found many works of fiction that contain spiritual gems which even philosophers find difficult to express. Here is an example:

It was the only way he knew, now, to express the relationship between creature and creator. He could not make petitions. They were all summed up in the original fiat: let your will be done. He could not bargain life for life, service for service because there was no vestige of self left to which he attached any importance.

Unless someone told me differently, I would attribute the phrase “there was no vestige of self left to which he attached any importance” to Sri Ramana Maharshi.

Here is another paragraph from the same source:

When at last the in-pouring came, it was simple and extraordinarily sweet, like a waft of perfume in a summer garden. There was light and a strange awareness of harmony as though the music was not played but written into the texture of the brain. There was a calm so powerful that he could…

The phrase “There was a calm so powerful” could have been uttered by any one of the Indian sages.

¶

Since I am most comfortable with English, the list largely consists of authors for whom English is the first language. Unless the translator is as spiritual or mature as the author, the insights don’t come through and the translated work comes out heavily stilted. There a couple of extraordinary books in Hindi and one in Gujarati but I recommend you to give them a miss unless you are reading them in the original.

General

• A Guide for the Perplexed by E. F. Schumacher is a gem. Schumacher was an internationally reputed economist and an adviser to the coal board of UK for many years. It must have been the experiences during this period that led to his book Small is Beautiful, among the most influential books of modern times. Shortly after the publication of SIB, his Guide for the Perplexed was published in 1977, the year Schumacher passed away.
• A few books by Christopher Isherwood, most notably:
  • Ramakrishna and His Disciples, and,
  • My Guru and His Disciple
• Most books published by the Mind & Life Institute, especially those resulting from dialogues with The Dalai Lama
• A few books by Narendra Kohli, specifically:
  • महासमर – the great war – a retelling of the Mahabharat in 8 volumes; it has many facets on the spiritual life that are not apparent when you study the Upanishads or other Indian texts.
  • अभिज्ञान,  a short novel on the meeting between Shri Krishna and Sudama. Shri Krishna speaks of the laws of action in a manner that I haven’t come across even in various commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita.
  • अभ्युदय, a retelling of the Ramayana in 2 volumes

Christianity

• The Cloud of Unknowing is one of the most beautiful books that I have come across. Originally compiled about AD500, it is available for download but it is worth buying a regular, old-fashioned paper based copy.
• The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis.
• The Sermon on the Mount is outstanding, of course, but only with the help of a commentary. It is like the Bhagvad Gita – seemingly disjointed and mere patter till someone knowledgeable explains it. For me, the commentary by Swami Prabhavananda was an eye opener.

Indian

For those who are comfortable with the Indian tradition, you cannot do better than consult

• The Roar of the Ganges by Mark Barian.
• Various books by Christopher Isherwood. Pay special attention to:
  • The Wishing Tree – an excellent book that gives an overview very succinctly. The book happens to be very readable, too.
  • Vedanta For The Western World, and,
  • An Approach to Vedanta
• A superb book, Towards the Silver Crest of the Himalayas by G. K. Pradhan, was printed only in about 5,000 copies or so and has never been available on the internet nor available for download. I have read it again and again and always discover new interpretations.
• I am That by Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj and translated by Maurice Frydman is a jewel but heavy going to start off with. This is one of the few books where the translation into English retains the spirit of the original.
• Bhagavad Gita – unless you study a commentary, you are wasting your time. A mere translation of the verses is useless. Considering the scope of this Upanishad, it is best to attend lectures given by a guru. If you can’t attend lectures, listening to recorded lectures would be the next best; believe me, even reading a transcription of the lectures is not good enough. One of the best that I have come across is about 600 lectures by Swami Paramarthananda.
• કર્મનો સિદ્ધાંત – the law (or rule) of Karma – by Hirabhai Thakkar is an absolute treasure.
• The Dhammapada, commentary by Eknath Easwaran

Fiction

Fiction on the spiritual life, God, saints, etc., is very well treated in:

• Various books by Morris West, most notably:
  • The Devil’s Advocate,
  • The Shoes of the Fisherman,
  • The Clowns of God,
  • Eminence, and,
  • The Last Confession
• Palace of Illusions by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni
• Lloyd Douglas is an undiscovered (in my limited circle) gem of an author. He was a minister of the church and authored various books, the following being my favorites:
  • The Robe, and,
  • The Big Fisherman
• The Keys of the Kingdom by A.J.Cronin
• The Razor’s Edge by Somerset Maugham. This book needs to be emphasized; get your children to read it, too.
• A Search in Secret India by Paul Brunton (I hesitate to classify Brunton’s book as fiction but otherwise I must call it a travelogue which is worse; it doesn’t deal exclusively with Sri Ramana so it cannot be called a biography or a collection of his teachings.)
• For lighter material on the subject as well as material with a feel good factor:
  • Various books by Richard Bach, most notable being:
    • Illusions, and,
    • Jonathan Livingston Seagull
  • Sati by Christoper Pike

Meditation

For the practice of meditation there is nothing better than Mindfulness in Plain English by Ven. Henepola Gunaratana. It is a booklet on Vipassana, freely available for download. It follows the Buddhist tradition and you may want to stick to it. If you want to get into the Hindu tradition, get someone to teach it to you but until you find a teacher no one better than Ven.Gunaratana.

In the Christian tradition, The Way of a Pilgrim is outstanding. The copy I have is not a very good translation. I used to have a much better one but I have forgotten the translator’s name; the book itself is gone and I don’t even remember who borrowed it. Maybe you can read all the 5 or 6 translations that exist – it will be time and money well spent.

¶

Many people are wary of the claims of mystical mumbo jumbo and are more comfortable with the opinion of main stream professionals and scientists. For such people:

• I have already cited A Guide For The Perplexed by E F Schumacher
• The Relaxation Response by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist with the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
• Dr.W.Ellerbroek was surgeon and psychiatrist at the Metropolitan State Hospital in Los Angeles. His Language, Thought, and Disease was first published in the ’70s in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Since it is no longer in print, and I haven’t noticed it on the internet either, let me cite a couple of sentences from it:

  • Originally I was interested in why people get “physical” illnesses, but now after eight years in psychiatry, it is becoming obvious to me that exactly the same mechanisms are responsible for so-called “mental illnesses,” whether trivial or catastrophic.

  • The message is: Don’t be depressed – why get cancer?

  • And this is what we are trying to do – go against your thinking and make it go a different way.

• Nature via Nurture by Matt Ridley. Ridley doesn’t write on God and stuff like that but his citations on main stream research on the effects of the mind on genes (and the other way round) force you to think.

¶

Astrology

Tags

faith healing, happiness, longreads, superstition, wisdom

Is astrology humbug? Mere superstition? Are astrologers charlatans, preying on the misfortunes of the gullible?

---

I think of myself as a rationalist who is willing to give the benefit of doubt to subjects of which I know nothing. I abhor taking sides without having first convinced myself through deduction and/or experience. Even if the side happens to be that of educationists, scientists and technologists! My own experience cannot be doubted even though everyone else looks down on the subject!

¶

I had started a software product business many years ago and had realised sometime during 2009, 17 years later, that I was being had. I needed to get out and find another job but age was against me. I did not have the resources to become an entrepreneur again – I had a family to support and a mortgage to pay off. I was desperate for alternatives.

The Monkey God

I grew up in a Hindu family that was not given much to rituals and temple visits. However, I was not a total stranger to them and grew up with the popular images of Lord Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Hanuman, Nandi, and other deities. I took these for granted and never questioned their worship.

As I grew up I found it a bit strange that we had animal deities. Shouldn’t we be worshiping and praying to beings higher, or more evolved, than us? Everyone knew that Hanuman was a monkey who was very close to Lord Rama. Along with his simian brethren and other animals, he had helped Rama rescue Sita by vanquishing Ravana.

How could we be worshiping a monkey?

It was puzzling.

I instinctively knew that there had to be a deeper meaning behind the imagery but couldn’t find anyone to explain it. In fact, many of my friends were put off by the lack of explanations to many such questions, to the extent that they rebelled against religion and all that it stood for.

As I grew older still, I came across printed references to the “monkey god”, foreigners referring to this monkey god with disdain, and even my educated countrymen explaining away Hanumanji as someone who only helped Rama. It became embarrassing, and humiliating, and aggravating – all at the same time. I didn’t like the feeling.

And then, through the chance remarks of my guru, the penny dropped.

¶

I used to have a college mate, one year senior to me, in the engineering college who came to my notice in the first few weeks when we freshers were being put through the welcoming ritual of ragging and I saw that, though physically present, Robin Sen was not really taking a part in the proceedings. His name stuck in my mind – so much so that I haven’t yet forgotten in spite of having no contact with him in the last 35 years.

Some time later we freshers found out that he was always in the top 5 of his class. Later still, we discovered that he was in the college football team and considered to be a reasonably good player. Finally, during an annual college function, we heard him playing the guitar in the college band.

“Yeh aadmi hai kyaa hai” is a Hindi expression used when a person is too good to be true. It can also be used to convey disparagement, the difference being in the tone of voice. In the case of Robin Sen, of course, the phrase was used with amazement at his range of abilities.

“Yeh aadmi hai, kyaa hai?“, exclaimed one of my classmates! Brilliant in academics, a good sportsman, and a musician to boot.

In the Lost Horizon, James Hilton portrays the character of Glory Conway brilliantly:

“He was certainly clever. He had a most exciting university career – until war broke out. Rowing Blue and a leading light at the union and prizeman for this, that, and the other – also I reckon him the best amateur pianist I ever heard. Amazingly many-sided fellow, the kind, one feels, that Jowett would have tipped for a future premier.”

And further:

…He was tall and extremely good-looking, and not only excelled at games but walked off with every conceivable kind of school prize. A rather sentimental headmaster once referred to his exploits as ‘glorious’, and from that arose his nickname. Perhaps only he could have survived it. He gave a speech day oration in Greek, [] and was outstandingly first-rate in school theatricals. There was something rather Elizabethan about him – his casual versatility, his good looks, that effervescent combination of mental with physical activities. Something a bit Philip-Sidneyish. Our civilisation doesn’t often breed people like that nowadays.

A person to whom “yeh aadmi hai, kyaa hai” applies perfectly. If you are a Hindi speaking person, you will immediately notice the power of the phrase – in 5 words it expresses the whole paragraph of Hilton’s.

¶

Yeh aadmi hai, kyaa hai is a perfect interpretation of vaanarahaa – narhaa va navaa – is this a human being or not? What sort of a human being is this? Is this a superman or what? He is too good to be true!!!

Hanumanji is described in Vaalmiki’s Ramayanam as nav vyaakaran panditaha – a scholar who knows 9 different grammars (for Sanskrit). A brilliant man.

He is portrayed as a very eloquent person. In fact, over two chapters Hanumaji speaks about how one should speak.

His physical abilities were exceptional and have become the stuff of legend.

He was humility itself. This is pointed out indirectly in the Ramayana which says that Hanumanji had to be reminded of his abilities before he could use them, which means that he never considered his abilities, which means that he never thought of himself, which means that he was ego less.

Finally, he was a panditaha in the true sense of the word – someone who had the knowledge, a wise person. This can be judged through his famous reply to Lord Rama in response to the question on who he was.

Far from being a monkey, Hanumanji was an exceptional being, a worshipful being. A being fit to be a deity.

¶

How does one imagine such a person before one prays to him or meditates upon him? One uses the image conjured up by the other meaning of the expression narhaa vaa navaa, vaanarahaa – monkey.

One is not meditating on a monkey but the exceptional qualities in the person represented by its Sanskrit word.

¶

I am sure Ganesha, Nandi, and other such forms also depict the nature of the being represented by their particular form. We are not naïve enough to imagine that there was ever a being with a human body and an elephant head and neither were our ancestors naive.

Maybe one day I will understand those myths also.

* * *

My Father and Your Father, My God and Your God

Tags

god, hinduism, names of god, vedanta, well being, wisdom

Responding to the last batch of questions for atheists posted by hessianWithTeeth. Phew!

¶

Why do you think your god(s) exists, but the other possible gods don’t? Why do you think I should believe in your god(s)?

My god, your god

I don’t think there is a question of my god and the god of others’. God exists, plain and simple. People of different traditions call him/her by different names. There is no difference between the god of hindus, the god of muslims, and the god of christians.

Therefore, I don’t ask anyone to believe in my god; rather, I am quite ready to believe in yours.

You can either believe in my god, or in yours, or believe that there is no god. I can offer a thought process (which may be faulty) which results in some experience concluding in the existence of god; I can also point you to the overwhelming, life changing testimony offered by various christian, muslim, and hindu saints.

¶

What do you believe to be the consequences of a world without god(s)?

Consequences of a world without god

There cannot be a world without god. The world is only a manifestation of god.

But the question probably means: “What will be the consequences if nobody believes in god?”

I doubt that there will be any change in the world.

There appear to be three possibilities – I can be a non-believer, I can believe wholeheartedly, or I can believe due to the fear of consequences of non-belief. In my mind there is no difference between non-belief and belief due to fear – there is no change in my being if I believe out of fear. If there is no inner change, my actions do not change.

If believers as a group were to vanish, it would not take very long for some people to logically apply their minds to the question. Out of this application, some would take up the matter with conviction. A portion of these would get their own experiences. Thus the cycle will start again.

¶

What do you think this god, or these gods, want from humans? Why?

What do humans mean to gods? What is our importance or significance?

Could they get whatever it is they want from humans without humans? Do they need whatever it is they created humans for? Why?

What gods want and what we mean to them

God cannot possibly want.

Wants, needs, and desires are an expression of my self-inadequacy (which is why there is no end to them) or are born out of the sheer joy of living (for example, I cook not to just do the job but to outdo myself or to learn something new).

By nature, god has to be all-knowing which includes self-knowing. Self-knowledge cannot go with self-inadequacy.

Again, god has to be blissful by nature. Therefore, he cannot have desires born out of expressions of outdoing himself.

Therefore, god cannot have want, needs, and desires. (S)he/it is already complete.

There is another way I can look at this topic: God is immanent and therefore every being, including you, me, and my dog is not separate from him. Desires can only be towards an object – whether material or conceptual. Since I am not separate from god, I cannot be an object for him and, therefore, he cannot have anything to want from me.

Because he is immanent, I cannot mean anything to him. Like him, I exist, am consciousness (and am complete although I don’t think so). Why should there be a specific meaning associated with me from her/his/its point of view? This may be one of the interpretations of statement “god made us in his own image.”

¶

Could you conceive of a world where humans exist without need of a god? What would that world look like? Why would it look like that?

Humans without need of a god

I can surely conceive of a world where humans don’t need a god.

I see plenty of people around me who don’t believe that god exists. The world looks fine for them. It looks fine to me, too.

I also understand that religious belief is declining where society guarantees security in old age. The world looks fine for people in these societies. It looks fine to me, too.

¶

Where does evil come from? What is the god(s) role in the existence of evil?

What makes one thing good and another thing bad? Do good and bad have the same source (ie. The same creator)? Or do they have different sources? What is the source of bad things (if it’s different from the source of good things)?

Good, bad, and evil

All evil comes from human beings.

Other beings cannot do evil since they act out of instinct rather than exercise a choice. A donkey lashes out if it feels like kicking, without exercising judgement on the person standing behind him, without trying to foresee the consequence of its actions. In that sense, it has no choice.

As a human, I always have choices. I also innately know what is good and what is not. If I don’t like to be hurt, harmed, cheated against, lied to, etc., I understand no one else likes it either – whether he is a hindu or christian, Indian or Alaskan, laborer or a professor, man or woman.

If I have desires which are too strong to be managed, I will come under their sway and either I will act badly or evilly, or I will indoctrinate others to do so. But, clearly, the source of the evil is me.

People don’t kill people.

People with gods kill people.

Of course, I can take the stand that when I exercise a choice, it comes out of my ability to make one, and this ability comes from god, and, therefore, god is responsible for evil. This stand would be worth considering only if I never felt guilt and regret. The fact that I do, means that I realize that I chose incorrectly, which means that I have an ability to distinguish between actions. Therefore, I can say that bad and evil have their roots in me.

I have interpreted the question “What is the role of god in the existence of evil?” above in the sense of whether he has a role to play in the existence of evil. Another way to interpret this question would be what god chooses to do after evil has come into being due to me.

I do not know. My scriptures tell me that god takes an appropriate form in this world – avatar – to restore the balance when the amount of evil is disproportionately high.

¶

Is morality objective or subjective? How do you know, or why do you believe, this?

Morality

See above.

I also find it interesting that Hindu scriptures don’t offer any commandments, rules on right conduct. It is understood that dharma is innate.

* * *

Life, the Universe, & Everything

Tags

hinduism, names of god, vedanta, well being, wisdom

Continuing with my attempt at answering the 15 questions posed by hessianWithTeeth, and begging to good naturedly offer a different opinion than that of paidiske, let me tackle the following, all in a group:

How do you think the universe began?
When do you think the universe began?
How do you think life began?
When do you think life began?

We all know that the universe began with the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. The source of the Big Bang was something called the Singularity. I understand that singularity itself is beyond any theory. Time, space, the physical laws, are all supposed to have come into existence about 3 seconds after the bang; our theories and mathematics don’t apply to the singularity. They say that the singularity did not have a physical size; this is quite logical since space did not exist and there cannot be a question of dimensions without space.

If I say that god used the singularity as the basis for the material universe, and that god himself was the efficient cause, I am indirectly saying that he was separated from it, it was other than god. If so, there was a distance between it and god. This would be illogical since there was no space to separate god and the singularity.

Suppose I say that the singularity was consciousness which was the efficient cause, which was god, then where was the material from which the universe came into being? If it was somewhere else, then the earlier question of space applies; in addition, if the material was somewhere else, who created it?

That is why hindu scriptures say that god manifested himself as the universe. He is at once the efficient cause and the material cause. And that is why hindu deities come in pairs – Shiva & Parvati, Vishnu & Laxmi – indicating that god is both, the efficient cause and the material cause.

¶

Prior to 14 billion years ago, where was god? If I say that nothing existed prior to the big bang, does that mean that god also did not exist before the bang?

That cannot be. Something (god and this universe) cannot come into being from nothing.

That is why hindu scriptures say that god has always existed and will always exist; in fact, existence is god. God has no beginning and no end while this universe, which is but a manifestation of god, has a beginning, will have an end, and will again come into being.

¶

Life is consciousness manifested in some material. In the absence of consciousness I only come across material. After I die, what will be left over will be lifeless material.

Two of the sanskrit names for god are praanah & praanadah – life, and the giver of life.

The nature of god is consciousness. Therefore he is life. Since god existed prior to this universe, and will continue to exist after this universe, life is also beginning-less.

Of course, the two questions on life posed by hessianWithTeeth pertain to life as we know it. And I have no reason to doubt the current theories which state that complex organic molecules organised themselves into self replicating particles. Maybe a better theory will be put forward in time. Personally, I am not too interested in the answer; it doesn’t really matter.

* * *

Why do I believe God exists?

Tags

hinduism, names of god, vedanta, well being, wisdom

I came across a post on hessianWithTeeth’s blog that was too titillating to pass by without mentioning it and without responding to it. The post, 15 Questions for Theists, also had some fascinating comments and responses, most notably this one by paidiske.

Both the referred blogs are in the spirit of genuine inquiry which urges me to respond with the hope that a dialogue continues.

Responding to all the points raised would be nice but I doubt if I can do that in one sitting.

¶

The first question posed on the post is:
How many gods are there? What are their names?
and the second question is:
How do you know these gods (or this god) exists? Why do you believe they exist?

Since no one has seen god(s), I would first like to question whether it is necessary to posit the existence of god in the first place; i.e., address the second question first.

The universe, of which I am a part, appears to behave intelligently – planets move round without crashing into each other, seeds grow into plants & trees if the conditions are right, chances are high that I will get cancer if I smoke, and so on. Most of the laws that govern the behavior of what goes on in & around me are known and understood, even though I personally may be at sea about them.

There are many other processes that are less understood – some processes of biology (why one smoker gets cancer while another doesn’t), most of the processes of psychology, and so on. Considering the massive amount of research that is going on, there is no reason to doubt that man will get to their bottom in time to come; after all we didn’t even understand gravitation till the late 1600s.

There are some processes which are dimly understood, if at all – those that give rise to suffering (as in the case of a seriously ill infant, say), those of the rise and fall of societies, and so on. I don’t know whether we will ever understand them but I have no doubt there are laws governing such processes also; with the universe behavior so intelligent in general, I cannot digest the idea that some aspects are left to chance.

Intelligence can only reside in consciousness.

I have a slight problem with the word “created” in this paragraph but I will let it stand – the alternative needs to be approached gently.

That conscious being, which created the universe which behaves intelligently, is what I call god. I think people of all faiths will call it god.

Not only is the being conscious, it has to be all-knowing, too; you can’t create without knowledge of what you are creating.

Did god create the world and cease to exist? No, because the universe continues to behave intelligently. Or maybe god died off and the universe’s continued intelligent behavior is the result of the laws that god had put in place? Maybe the answer to this corollary will come in the process of addressing all the points raised by hessianWithTeeth.

¶

How many gods are there? Is there one which gave rise to the material world, another which gave rise to the physical laws, another which gave rise to another set, and so on? If we posit that there are multiple gods, then we have to ask ourselves who created all these multiple gods. At the end of this regression, what remains has to be the one god.

What is the name of this god?

As the question is framed, I think giving a name to god is not very important. The word “god” is good enough. A name is a word that points to an object. I need to give names to differentiate between different beings in my day to day intercourse with people. If there are multiple objects with the same name – say “Smith” – then I need additional words (adjectives) to differentiate between them – the tall Smith, the white-haired Smith, and so on.

If there is only one god, there is no question of differentiating it/her/him from others of a group.

Then why do we have various names for god? Especially Hindus (I am one of them) who are sometimes derided for being polytheists? I have addressed this point earlier in the following posts:

gods words
om
hindu gods
hindu deities
your god is the true god

* * *

Death, why is thy sting?

Tags

death, happiness, mithya, reality, wisdom

I lost my younger brother recently. I was shocked speechless when I first heard about it – after all, I had exchanged messages with him barely half an hour earlier.

Breaking the news to other members in the family was heart rending and I sobbed uncontrollably.

Why was I grief stricken? I need to analyse the event and come to terms with the new situation.

¶

For one, I had lost someone very close to me, someone I had grown up with and knew for more than 50 years. Grief and sadness was natural.

Was it? Let me be brutally honest here. For all my closeness with him, did I really know him? Many of his friends met me during the services or sent condolence messages. They highlighted aspects of my brother that I didn’t know about, character traits that I didn’t even know existed. For example, at least 2 friends said that he was very good with their children and had kept up a relationship with them from their infancy. Good with children? I didn’t know about this!

I don’t even know myself, how can I claim to know the other?

I didn’t really know the brother that I thought I knew.

¶

Even though we lived in different cities and could meet only maybe twice a year, we spoke frequently on the phone – about once a week. I enjoyed his ready wit & humor, was inspired by his knowledge of diverse subjects, and was impressed with his brilliance (3 patents were awarded to him).

I will no longer enjoy his intelligence and humor.

However, these cannot be his true nature. They were attributes of his character which manifested on occasion and remained hidden on others. Otherwise, I would have found him intelligent and humorous on all occasions which is not the case. And it is foolish to rely on the permanence of an attribute, knowing full well that it comes and goes.

¶

I shared a lot with him and he helped clarify my thoughts, goals, desires, and ambitions. We shared a love of books although he was much better read than I am.

I have lost my sounding board and will now be lonelier.

So! Assuming that I need a soul-mate badly enough, what is preventing me from seeking someone else with whom I can share? Maybe I didn’t bother earlier because I already had one. Suppose I hadn’t gotten along with my brother, wouldn’t I have found someone else? Moreover, our relationship had its ups and downs and there were stretches when we were quite curt with each other.

¶

It seems that my sorrow is for what I have lost, not for my brother’s life cut short, and not for the opportunities & joys that he will now no longer get. Pretty selfish of me to feel sorry for myself when my brother has lost his very life!

It also seems that my grief is the result of a sudden shattering of my ideas; concepts and ideas formed over a long period, and never questioned, and which have suddenly proved themselves to be powerless against reality. If every thought and feeling is questioned, however precious, and tested for validity, I doubt whether grief can overwhelm.

¶

Turning away from the above pragmatic views, I can also question the statement: “I lost my brother“.

Everyone will agree that he was not the body although obviously his body was the location when one wanted to interact with him. His body was mithya; in reality he was something else. All his qualities and attributes were also mithya. After negating everything that is unreal about my brother, what I am left with is the un-objectified consciousness which cannot have any qualities and attributes including those of location and time.

If my brother is this un-objectified and un-objectifiable consciousness, then any statement construct which indicates his death is quite meaningless. He cannot die; neither can he go away – where will he go?

¶

Because he is the un-objectified consciousness, he and I are one. Therefore, in a sense, I am also diminished upon his passing away. This is most probably what John Donne had in mind when he wrote:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

It tolls for thee

Tags

death, meditation, prayer, spirituality

There have been many occasions where I have consoled people who were bereaved. I have attended many services held in the memory of people who have departed. But I have never conceived, in concrete terms, of my own death. I have thought about it in a theoretical manner, of course, but such thoughts were never accompanied by a sense of urgency; there was never an emotion attached to thoughts of my own death.

This was brought out very strongly a few days after the recent demise of my younger brother, who was struck down while in good health. I realised that even now the immediacy of death did not have an impact. Was I deficient, somehow? Or was this normal?

In the Mahabharata we have a situation where Yudhisthira’s life depends on correctly answering various questions put by a Yaksha. One of the questions is: “What is the greatest wonder?” The response of Yudhisthira is striking:

Day after day countless people die. Yet the living never give a thought to their own death. O Lord, what can be a greater wonder?

I had heard this story many times and had even related it for the benefit of my daughter, nieces, and nephews. But for the first time I felt its impact.

Is there frustration, irritation, or anger? Now the thought of evanescence of my own life is a good counter. Is there envy or jealousy? Greed? These emotions lose their weight with the thought of precariousness of life.

May god grant that I don’t sink into my earlier state of stupor; may this shock be ever alive for me.

Although John Donne used the following lines in a different sense, I find them a good wake up call:

… and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Your god is the true god!

Tags

happiness, hinduism, islam, meditation, names of allah, names of god, prayer, spirituality, well being, wisdom

Hindus believe there is only one god (see Hindu gods and Hindu deities). Muslims and Christians also believe there is only god.

Is there a difference between the god of Hindus, the one of Muslims, and the one of Christians?

The wise ones of the Hindu tradition have given different names for god, each of which has a specific meaning and a reason to use the word. Muslims also have various names for Allah and the wise men of Islam also must have had reasons to give these names.

Wisdom cannot be different among people of different faiths. Just as being wise in the ways of the world is similar whether you are a Muslim businessman or a Hindu, being wise in the ways of the lord has to be similar whether you follow the religion of the Hindus or of Muslims.

Therefore, it stands to reason that there must be similarities in the names of the lord given by people of different faith, just as there are similar or common names between shiv-sahasranama, vishnu-sahasranama, and lalitha-sahasranama.

I want to compare some names as given by Hindus and by Muslims. As far as I know (I may be wrong, of course) Christians do not have different words.

¶

ओम्

Om – that which protects, that on which everything depends for its very existence, that which gives existence to everything.

الحفيظ
المهيمن

In Islam, although al-hafiz is understood as the preserver, Shaykh Hakim Moinuddin Chishti additionally interprets it as the protector, the guardian. When we say khudaa haafiz, we are saying let god protect and preserve you.

al-muhaymin – the protector.

Both, al-hafiz and al-muhaymin, have the same connotations as Om.

¶

विष्णुः
सर्वः

vishnu, sarvah

vishnu is that which spreads through and through, pervades. Not only the gross objects but even cells, atoms, particles, the space within an atom, the space between the particles, everything. In short, the substratum of everything.

sarvah is everything. Note that everything is not only that which is known to me but also that which is unknown to me.

الباسط

Shk.M.Chishti gives al-basit (the reliever, he who is the expander) an additional meaning – the spreader. Although the sense may be slightly different from that of vishnu, the similarity appeals to me.

Obviously, the enlarger and the expander are similar to the sanskrit brahman. So here is one word which means vishnu and brahman, both.

¶

विश्वम्

vishwam – Normally used to refer to the universe, it actually means all the cognitions due to all the senses interacting with their objects – vividha pratyaya gamyam. Only human senses and human cognitions are not implied. Bats have an organ, like the sonar, through which they locate objects in the dark; the sense impressions gathered by them through their sense organs are included in vishwam. If angels exist, and if they have senses and a mind, then their cognitions are also included in vishwam. Thus, the word vishwam refers to all cognitions of all senses of all beings.

Everything, in short.

While the word can, and does, refer to the group of objects that make up everything there is, known to me and unknown to me, it is much more satisfying to think of it as Spinoza’s “substance”, that which stands beneath everything, the underlying unity of everything.

الواسع

The Arabic al-wasi has a similar meaning – the vast, the all-embracing, the comprehensive.

¶

साक्शी
क्शेत्रज्ञः

sakshi, kshetrajna

Since Om is the fundamental stuff on which everything depends, itself not being dependent on anything, it has to be of the nature of consciousness, chit. As consciousness, it is just the witness of the jagat, not doing any action, not a doer.

Why it has to be of the nature of consciousness is the subject matter for another post, maybe.

The word indicates that my essential nature is the same as that of Om.

الشهيد

ash-shahid (the witness, he who is present everywhere and observes all things) has a similar connotation, although I don’t know whether they are exact equivalents.

¶

श्रीमान्
श्रीनिवासः
श्रीपतिः
श्रीदः
श्रीनिधिः

shree-maan, shree-nivaasah, shree-patih, shree-dah, shree-nidhih

The importance of wealth (resources) in our lives is indicated by the number of names referring to it. A few are given here but there are many more in the vishnu-sahasranaama. Although I am treating them jointly, their connotations differ.

Variously, they indicate that the owner of wealth, its abode, the giver, the treasure-chest, is Om.

If I think that “I” have put in efforts and earned my wealth, here is some food for thought.

الغني
المغني

al-ghani (self-sufficient, rich, independent), and al-mughni (enricher) have the exact same meanings.

¶

स्वयंभूः
अनादिनिधनः

svayambhooh, anaadi-nidhanah

svayambhooh is self born, as opposed to someone like me, who is born due to the results of my karma.

Since there is no cause for him to be born, it means that he was never born, i.e., he has no beginning, anaadi, i.e., he has always existed.

If he has no karma, there is no reason for him to die, stop existing; therefore, he is one who will not die, has no death – an-nidhanah. Even when the universe is destroyed, he will continue to exist. In fact, he cannot die, i.e., cease to exist, else what will give existence to the jagat?

الأول
الأخر

al-awwal (the first) and al-akhir (the last) are the Arabic equivalents, although I am sure the sense would be slightly different.

¶

सत्यम्

satyam This word is misunderstood a bit, normally taken to be the truth, in the sense of that which is not false. Actually, satyam refers to that which exists in the past, the present, and the future; i.e., that which always exists; thus, it can only refer to God since everything else has either a beginning (it did not exist earlier), or an end (it will not exist later), or both.

الحق

The Arabic al-haqq literally means the truth but I do not know whether it has the same sense as the sanskrit satyam.

¶

प्रकाशात्मा

prakaash-aatma

One whose nature is that of light, i.e., of consciousness; used in the same sense as when we speak of casting light on a subject or on a problem. People also interpret this word as that which causes all things to be displayed but I find this a bit shallow when talking about god.

النور

Arabic has a word for Allah with the same meaning – an-nur, the light, he who provides divine light to the entire universe, to the face, mind, and heart of his servant. Providing light to the mind and heart signifies consciousness.

¶

अप्रमेयः
गहनः
गुह्य

Aprameya, gahanah, guhya

He is aprameya, unknowable – there is no tool, or means of knowledge that will enable him to become known (aprameya does not mean immeasurable as is normally interpreted; the word immeasurable has a slightly different meaning).

If aprameya is taken in the sense of unknowable, it also signifies that that he is gahanah (difficult to access), and guhya (concealed or hidden (because he is unknowable)).

الباطن

In Islamic terms he is al-batin – the hidden, the inward.

¶

ईश्वरः
प्रभुः

ishwarah, prabhuh

ish means lord and the suffix varach provides a sense of permanency to the lord; in effect, ishwarah is the one who will ever be the lord, who has no other lord over him and never will be.

prabhuh also means the lord.

الملك

Islam’s al-malik (sovereign lord, absolute king) is an exact equivalent.

¶

अच्युतः
छिन्नसंशयः

achyutah, chinnasamshayah

achyutah is infallible. He is infallible because he is all wise, there is no area where wisdom is lacking.

chinnasamshayah is one whose doubts are all cleared, there are no more doubts, there is no scope left for doubts to come in, which is the same as saying that there is total wisdom, which comes to infallibility.

الحكيم

al-hakim is the all wise, and therefore infallible. I see an extremely strong resemblance with achyutah and chinnasamshayah.

¶

प्राणदः
प्राणः

praanadah, praanah

Not only is he the giver of life (praanadah), he is the one who cuts (takes away) life (another declination of praanadah), and he is life (praanah) itself.

المحيي
المميت

Muslims call him al-muhyi (the giver of life), and also al-mumit (the bringer of death).

We have here an example of one Hindu word, praanadah, which is equivalent to two different Islamic words for god.

¶

Between Islam and Hinduism, I find quite a few words which have strikingly similar meanings and connotations. I am sure one will be able to draw equivalents for every word for god.

Therefore, from whatever I have understood, there is no difference between the Muslim god and the Hindu god.

Therefore, I have no problem if your god is the one true god. After all, mine is the same as yours!

¶

References:
namesOfAllah.com
names of Allah on wikipedia
The Book of Sufi Healing by Shaykh Hakim Moinuddin Chishti

* * *

Hindu Deities

Tags

hinduism, reality, spirituality, vedanta, wisdom

I said in my last post (Hindu Gods) that according to the scriptures of sanaatana dharma, there is only one god.

Here is one more reason for saying so:

As we are aware, Hindus have various sahasranaama stotrams – the 1,000 names of the lord. Vishnu-sahasranaama is one of the popular ones but we have Shiva-sahasranaama and Lalita-sahasranaama, and others also. The names contained in these are of 3 types:

• one set reveals the essential nature of the lord – satyam, for example.
• another set points to the lord as the cause of the jagat – whether the efficient cause or the material cause. If the name refers to the essential cause, god takes a masculine gender and is treated as a father figure; if the name reveals the material cause, god takes a feminine gender and is treated as a mother figure. That is why Hindus are at home with god either as father or as mother.
• names in the third set reveal the lord in his manifest form including his avataras.

If the lord is only one, we would expect the first two set of names to repeat in various sahasranaamas. And that is what we find:

• sad-asad, and shiva are common to all three sahasranaamas,
• kanakaangad, nirguna, mahaabalaa, and mahaabuddhi are common to the vishnu and lalita sahasranaamas
• nirvaanam, sthir, sthaanu, and vishwakseno are common to vishnu and shiva sahasranaamas

The above are indicative and there must be many more. The point that I want to make is that the various sahasranaamas do share common names of the lord. Therefore, although Hindus might have various deities that they worship, they do believe that there is only one god.

Not only do Hindus maintain that there is one god, they go a step further and say that there is only god since the jagat that we experience is mithya.

OK. If there is only one god, who is he? Vishnu, or Shiva, or who?

How does it matter? These are but names, very pregnant names no doubt but still names, each pointing out one of the ways of understanding god. Here is a post giving my understanding of why god is given multiple names. Out of the hundreds of choices that I have, I would refer to god with a name that strikes a chord within me. In fact, I can refer to him by different names depending on why I am invoking him at all.

¶

What is it with so many Hindu deities? How do they come into the equation?

I am an average human being and enjoy the capacity of sight, sound, taste, etc. Where does this power or capacity come from? If I say that the various organs are responsible for these powers, I have not really said anything. I can keep going down and claim that the cells or the genes are responsible, but I am still not saying anything meaningful. After all, genes are also made up of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which in turn are composed of particles, and then sub atomic particles, and so on. So, ultimately, where does this capacity come from? Is it the sub-atomic particles which give me sight?

I doubt if anyone can claim that.

Let me admit that these capacities are available to me in some mysterious way. And let me also say that their giver is one – there cannot be a different giver for each capacity. And let me call this giver god the father, or god the mother, or Om, or nature (or any of the other meaningful names that we have seen and will see).

I have no problem using ‘nature’ and ‘god’ interchangeably since nature is but a manifestation of god.

And since the capacities are different (taste, speech, etc.) let me call them different aspects of god. And since it is cumbersome to refer to “that aspect of god that has given me speech”, let me use a nice, short word for it given by the wise – Agni. Occasionally, I will have to pray for better speaking abilities or for control over my tendency to hot and wounding words; let me address my prayers to Agni instead of “that aspect of god that has given me speech” or god in general. Not that Agni’s help will be more or better than god’s; but my prayers are compact and focused.

One of the names of Vishnu is vashatkaaraha, the ultimate beneficiary of all offerings.

And if I make an offering to Agni, I can be sure that god has received it.

Suppose there is a cancerous growth in the upper left hand corner of my liver. I will take medical treatment, no doubt, but I will also pray – to that aspect of god which is responsible for the upper left hand corner of my liver. Since I don’t even know the name of that particular part of the organ, much less the name of the deity responsible, I am sure I can invoke god instead of trying to identify the deity responsible for that specific part of the liver.

¶

Here is another way I like to look at deities:

I am subject to various laws of the land in which I live. The traffic laws specify how I should behave on the road, the civil laws regulate how I socially & commercially behave with my fellow citizens, and the criminal laws regulate how I socially behave in some specific acts. I am sure it will be more complicated than what I have just said but it is enough to develop the argument.

Depending on which law I transgress, a specific type of law enforcement officer brings me to justice. Who has invested him with the power to take action against me? His boss? The home minister? The minister for justice (if there is such a thing)? No, ultimately it is the constitution that is the source of authority for all functionaries in all departments of the government.

If I have been wronged against, I can’t appeal to the constitution. But the constitution itself has laid down guidelines of whom I should approach and the constitution itself has given powers to that position whether to accept my prayer or turn it down.

* * *