Living in eternity

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.” – Albert Einstein

The human mind is an ultimate enigma, the phantom bridge between the physical universe and all the mechanics it encompasses and the ethereal that we deign the source of our spirituality, the ‘inexplicable’. How it interprets the immediate two dimensional array of objects in front of one’s eyes makes all the difference when it comes to philosophy, and a revolution in the field is nothing but another (seemingly revolutionary) explanation as to how the mind works. Thinkers for long have attempted to quantify the emotions of the mind, its fantastic imagery, the way it even functions, but to no avail. Earlier on, there was Hinduism, which hypothesizes that there exists a single universal truth called Brahman. Alongside the Brahman is another entity called Maya, who is the epitome of illusion and all that is untrue. Therefore, the universe was a dichotomy not of good and evil, but of truth and untruth. Within each and every one of us, there existed a piece of this Brahman which the sages called the self. It is scripted in ancient texts that some sages and rishis spent thousands of years trying to attain this self and thus be delivered from the cycle of birth and death.

Amongst the various doctrines of Hinduism, the Vedas and the associated Vedantas play an extremely important role. The Vedas are classified into four volumes: Rig, Sama, Atharva, Yajur, whereas Vedanta represents the ‘end of knowledge’, rather the ‘complete knowledge’ (’anta‘, Sanskrit for end). Now, the Vedas have to do with man’s realisation of Brahman, or the universal truth, whereas the Vedanta focus on the illusions of Maya, or the indescribable. The concept of Maya was first introduced by the great philosopher Adi Sankara, and deals with the illusions of the Universe. According to Hinduism, Brahman is the sole universal truth, thereby depriving Maya of its truisms. On the other hand, Brahman is realised only through transcendental meditation to pierce the veil of Maya, there by restoring Maya’s truth. This is the reason she is referred to as the indescribable, since her truth contradicts itself. The concept of Maya itself is extremely difficult to comprehend. Maya is said to have been born from the dream of the Supreme Lord, and she carries forth the characteristics of the universe that make it perceptible, tangible. There is a good metaphor for godliness in this vision: when the Brahman is reflected on Maya, God is the image.

Here is a good example by Sri Sankaracharya as to the definition of Maya.

“Though the emission of ejaculate onto sleeping garments or bedclothes is yielded by the natural experience of copulation in a wet dream, the stain of the garment is perceived as real upon waking whilst the copulation and lovemaking was not true or real. Both sexual partners in the dream are unreal as they are but dream bodies, and the sexual union and conjugation was illusory, but the emission of the generative fluid was real. This is a metaphor for the resolution of duality into lucid unity.”

The meaning of duality mentioned above is twofold. Duality, in many schools of thought, is the representation of the good powers in the Universe, and the malignant powers. Some religious beliefs recognise both as Supreme Powers (bitheism), whereas some deign the evil as the altercation of the good. Maya, in her being, is born from the dream of the Supreme Lord, which in the case of Hinduism, is representative of the good. The other duality in question is a reference to the two ideas of truth and untruth.

Now, the soul, as it were, is true if one wants it to be. I want it to be. Why? Going by my argument:

• Core argument 1: There is only One Absolute Truth.
• Core argument 2: There can only be one True perception of it.
• Parallel argument 1: we are all part of the same Universe.
• Parallel argument 2: we all concur to the same Truth because of CA2 and PA1.
• Parallel argument 3: Sight (or visual perception) of the body that contains the soul is varied.
• Core argument 3: One perception of the Truth recapitulates that the body outside the soul is illusory.
• Parallel argument 4: I think therefore I am; the illusion I perceive as being around me is so because I think that it exists. In other words, the illusion exists    only because I do. If I were not here to be able to perceive it, then the illusion itself does not exist anymore.
• Core argument 4: An element other than the body constitutes the Truth.

The soul is a hypothesis drawn from these conclusions – like in a physics laboratory; a graviton is hypothesised and simultaneously believed to be existent just so particle physics agrees with its Newtonian counterpart.

If Brahman were to be constituted as the soul of the self, then the mind would come to represent the knot that firmly establishes the relationship between matter and consciousness. Matter, again, is but a section of Maya herself, and therefore, the perception of the self as being real and true is derived from Maya. Does this mean the self is also illusory? If so, then the body is only a garment. If not, then the body is real and assumes the form of the Truth. But Brahman being declared the sole truth, the concept of Karma comes into action. The mortal is, now, enchained to a cycle of births and deaths until he attains Moksha from Samsara. Karma is the causality of everything and not the cause itself. Man errs. In doing so, his payment for his sins results in him assuming multiple bodies (or garments). My grandfather used to say that if I trampled an ant, I would be reborn as an ant in my next life. However, if the act is committed unknowingly or at the behest of fulfilling a higher purpose, it is not constituted as a sin. For example, there was this tale of a rich merchant who proudly harboured the thought that he had never committed a sin in his life. However, one day, he stamped a cockroach to death. Paranoid and attempting to release himself from accusations of being a sinner, he comes out of his house and hands the cockroach to Ram the sweeper on the street, and asks him to partake of the sin completely. When judgment day arrives for both the men, the sweeper is not consigned to Hell. The merchant is curious and asks the Lord why. The Lord replies that in being a sweeper, Ram’s duty was to kill little insects that troubled other people, and therefore, he was not sinning in killing those insects. Anyway, the presence of Karma Yoga is what results in rebirths. However, at the end of these cycles of life, when a person attains Moksha, the elements of the Universe are finally understood as being the various fixtures of Maya, including Karma itself.

When I, as a child, was exposed to Hinduism and its various beliefs and scriptures, I was of the impression that they were all true (like how a child thinks the story of ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ is true). But I never really thought Hinduism had such firm basis on the argumentative verges of philosophical thinking. I may not know what the Brahman actually stands for other than being the Universal truth, but the reasoning behind it seems intact. The ideas of meditation (as a means to attain Brahman) have totally swept over my head other than for the sole reason of finding peace. But meditation itself has a deep inner meaning I learn. To discover the One true self within ourselves is no simple task. There are tales buried in the many thousand pages of the Hindu scriptures of great sages undertaking strict penances in order to realise Brahman. We, as humans, lay buried beneath the infinitely many layers of Maya and her imagery that, given the complexity of our supposedly illusory lives, we can’t truly recognise Brahman even if we were to stumble across it. In the metaphor I mentioned above, God is the image of Brahman on Maya. It is our belief that godliness is true, and that God as a being does exist. It is a general belief as well as a consensus amongst most believers that the concepts of Maya, Brahman and Karma are very complex and intricate. Many worship God just ask for a favour without really understanding that they are asking the True Self hidden within them for a favour! It is the understanding of these principles that delivers Hinduism its true standing.

Who is an atheist?

I want to begin with discussing the question: does our past really play a role in the shaping of our future? If so, how does it? I was reading the Srimad Bhagavatam, a translation and transliteration of the holy Vedas by Vyasa, a Sanskrit scholar, and was browsing through the Twelfth canto when I found a section on the Karma Yoga. I could not understand the slokas, and the translation and meaning sections also didn’t help much. It was too deep, too blue. I gave up, but not before reading the summary of the chapter: the Karma Yoga dealt with one’s actions and their reformation in order to live a full, wholesome life.

Now, just consider the contemporary scenario. The world around is powered by science, and education plummets us forward and ahead of the illiterate. There is nothing to be done, nothing to be learnt or taught, if there is no education. In turn, the education that powers us does so by filtering out an immense amount of information, thereby creating knowledge. Our knowledge is most probably restricted to those matters that aid in the improvisation of our lives. Education imparts perception, perception imbues understanding, understanding delivers belief. I for one cannot simply accept when someone says there is a God. I need proof because I deign myself a man of science. I base my faiths in logic and reason. They have suited me well in many matters and thus, I effect that they aid me in my religious principles as well. For, religion is hollow sans belief, is it not? Anyway, I simply can’t come to terms with God – science presents me with the option of basing my faith in some other cause, a cause that is logical and reasonable. Let God exist for those who cannot switch to science and its “explanations” abruptly (I’m, of course, talking of the elderly, who saw drastic changes in their lives as they moved through the Industrial Revolution), or to those who consider science’s prowess a sign that points to it being another of God’s innumerable creations. For that matter, science itself might not be absolute but that’s a different issue. What I’m saying is that intelligence has transformed me into an atheist, but not a complete one at that. I would like to believe in a God at the borders of science, where logic itself fails at explaining phenomena like the structure of space before the big bang.

बुद्धीन्ध्रियार्था रूपेण |
जनानाम भाति ताधाश्रयम ||
ध्र्श्यथ्वाव्यतिरैखाभ्याम |
आध्यांतावाद अवस्तु यात ||

Therefore, in the absence of a spiritual power or, say, the Absolute Truth, my future continues to be the enigma it is in the absence of Karma Yoga. There is no Heaven or Hell to judge me, I am not part of a cycle of birth and death, I don’t have to pay for my sins by the eye-for-an-eye principle. It is my mind which is at work behind all these things, and it is me who is responsible.

Karma Yoga dwells on those sections of life that are sometimes derived from just experience (the past). If a car hits me while I’m crossing the road and I break my leg, some would say I might have broken someone’s leg in the past like that. Even then, if I have, I would not beat myself up for committing that sin. I would blame it on me, my decisions and values, my behaviour, my self. I would place my values and morals above my spirituality. Even in such cases, Karma Yoga seems to resurface when you subconsciously establish a connection between your past and your present – a form of the placebo effect.

* * *

Some elements that guide you in life are, like I said, your education, your understanding of the world derived from your perceptions. Who you are is completely by determined by these elements and there is no refuting that. If your parents have screwed you over, it is you who has decided to blame them for it and continue being screwed, instead of learning from your mistakes and building your strengths and weaknesses. When you believe that your past is connected to your present, it is your education which is being dwelt upon: when you try and recollect as to why you performed such an act in the past, the lessons you may not have learnt at that time are costing you your health or wealth now. The spiritual in us seeps into our personality when we refuse to accept our insecurities for what they are and, instead, choose to mask them with reasons that suitably plug the hole. Theism only makes us feel secure in a small period of time, and it holds us and hugs us all through our lives if only we trust our minds with it.

One of the greatest political leaders and scholars I know is Periyar (original name: E. V. Ramasamy), a Dravidian social activist in Tamil Nadu, India. An important contribution of his to the Indian society was the awakening of the non-Brahmins, and the instilling of self-respect in them. His many speeches and articles and essays spoke about the Brahmins who claimed to be superior just because they controlled the temples and performed archanas. He implored the people to realise and understand that spirituality and godliness was not everything: he believed that everything was what it was only if we, the people, made it to be. Above everything stood us, our morals and values, us as who we were and us as what our duties were. God was no obligation.

That religion is only as strong as the weakest believer is very true. More than those who devoutly believe in a God and His/Her prowess, there are those who use religion as a mask, as a shield. The following is a quote that summarises what most atheists believe in, in that we are only non-believers, not fundamentalists.

“…the talk of the atheist should be considered thoughtless and erroneous. The thing I call god… that makes all people equal and free, the god that does not stop free thinking and research, the god that does not ask for money, flattery and temples can certainly be an object of worship. For saying this much I have been called an atheist, a term that has no meaning“

– Periyar

However, I am an atheist – in that I believe in Periyar’s definition of God, and therefore am inevitably an atheist because I don’t believe in God as He is otherwise. I don’t know if I am an agnostic. But I am not an atheist or an agnostic like some of the many people I know: people who think intelligence recapitulates atheism. I have reasons for my choices, and I have given them.