Dashavataras in Hinduism and EVOLUTION (E O M - 5)

The  most contentious  debates over evolution have involved religion. From Darwin’s day to the present, members of some religious faiths have perceived the scientific theory of evolution to be in direct and objectionable conflict with religious doctrine regarding the creation of the world. Most religious denominations, however, see no conflict between the scientific study of evolution and religious teachings about creation. 

Opponents   of   evolution argue that only a divine intelligence, and not some comparatively random, undirected process, could have created the variety of the world’s species, not to mention an organism as complex as a human being. Some people are upset by the oversimplification that humans evolved from monkeys. In the eyes of some, a divine being placed humans apart from the animal world. 

Science and Spirituality: Explaining evolution (article 4)

 Dr Pawan Dhar article online 28 August 2012

((http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/publish/article-9162533194.php)

Darwin's model of evolution complements a subtle message in the ancient religious texts. Do science and spirituality both point to the same trend using different examples? Does spirituality go a step beyond and predict the future? Pawan Dhar draws the parallels.

The question of spontaneous creation versus intelligent design is still unsolved. We do not have a clear understanding of how life emerged on this planet? What were the initial substances, catalysts and reaction conditions?

If we take the view that God created the world, we must justify

emergence of new variants and species. If we take the view that God

continues to create new life forms, it is important to find the energy

signature of God. If we take the view that God does not exist, then we need to provide an explanation for the unique fundamental differences between the living and the non-living.

Models of physical evolution

Though the origin of life continues to remain an enigma, the evolution

of life generally falls into the following belief systems

(i)evolution does not happen, 

(ii)evolution happens towards increasing complexity,

(iii)evolution happens towards decreasing complexity.

Studies on microbes with faster doubling rates e.g.E.coli have been particularly useful to address these issue. It is a common knowledge that evolution occurs in the form of emergence of new traits when microbes are grown under artificially controlled conditions.

Available scientific evidence supports the view that the primordial seed of life populated our planet nearly 3 billion years ago. The earliest

life forms were small ribonucleic acid molecules, capable of performing trivial biochemical tasks. With the increasing presence of favorable conditions these self-replicating RNA strings acquired a wrapper of cell membranes. With time, new cell parts sprouted giving rise to a range of cellular functions. From single cells a colony of cells working in concert arose. These were precursors of more complex aquatic life forms. Random migration towards land gave rise to terrestrial organisms.

Darwin's theory says that eukaryotic evolutionary process starting from simple organisms resulted in the emergence of more complex forms like fishes, amphibians, reptiles, aves and mammals - the upper end of mammalian spectrum being humans.

Darwin and Dashavataras in Hinduism

Interestingly, Darwin's theory not only enjoys a strong scientific

support but also finds a symbolic resemblance in several religious texts of Hinduism. Though there are delicate differences in the names, the chassis of supernatural forms is generally accepted and recognized as Dashavataras or the ten forms of Lord Vishnu (das: ten, avatar: incarnation).

.

Whether these avatars existed or not, the key message is the presence of a clear evolutionary trend from the aquatic (matsya avatar) to

terrestrial (varaha avatar) life forms, matching the Darwinian model, and symbolized by a major phenotypic change that follows every level.

Why evolution?

According to ancient Hindu scriptures, it is the fundamental desire of knowing the life-giving substance that drives evolution. This grand desire is deeply embedded in our life operating system resulting in the evolution of bodily forms followed by the evolution of mind. The evolution of mind ultimately results in the identification of oneself with highest intelligence. To support this phase of evolution two things were needed - the evolution of brain and the evolution of a neural network.

Interestingly, the evolution of intelligence seems to match the

evolution of brain. Available scientific evidence indicates that human intelligence was an outcome of more cortical neurons and synapses emerging in human brain leading to greater information processing speed.

The earliest life forms probably did not feel pain, as nervous system

was rudimentary or absent. With increasing biological complexity a need for a large scale well-coordinated activity arose. This gave birth to nervous system connecting higher brain-level controls with the local cell-level activities.

With the emergence of notochord@, subtle energy channels found a place to collaborate. In yogic parlance, they are known as chakras. With the emergence of upright posture and a vertically stiff vertebral column, the spinal cord was surmised host a number of additional chakras, from the genital organ to the brain. At every level, intelligence received a boost.

As humans evolved and survival was assured, the focus moved towards the evolution of intelligence. With the evolution of intelligence, the capability to think and concentrate received a tremendous boost. This led to the emergence of philosophy and religion (made of story, rituals and spirituality).

@(Medical Dictionary  notochord  n. A flexible rod like structure that forms the main support of the body in the lowest chordates; a primitive backbone.  A similar structure in embryos of higher vertebrates, from which the spinal column develops).

The future

Ironically, brain evolution followed by mind evolution led to more

complex behavioral outcomes than expected. Unfortunately, instead of intensifying the search for highest intelligence, the need itself got blurred and mind got more survival-oriented. 

( My remarks: Since desire is the function of mind the mind must have evolved with new desires which would have brought about changes in the brain and behavioral outcome).

The present evolution state is believed to be closest to the highest

form when physical, emotional and mental capabilities have reached peak misuse. Spiritually speaking, due to tremendous increase in human empowerment, the world has witnessed a rapid increase in environmental abuse, natural disasters, life threatening diseases and hatred. Humanity desperately needs a major reboot. And if Darwin and the scriptures are to be believed, the last phase of evolution towards highest intelligence has just begun.

NOTE: Swami Vijnananand has also given the reference of the Dashavataras in context of the evolution in some of his books, discourses.

Vijay R. Joshi

MIND rationally explained (W.M.M. - 5)

We saw the outline of the rational concept of God in the blogs 'GOD RECONSIDERED", as explained in the book by Swami Vijnananand. For majority of the people who would like to keep faith, belief in something, the God concept serves the purpose aptly. The basic God concepts from all cultures do not change much and on rational ground even agnostics can nurture the God concept in a rational manner.

We may not know 'why' of the universe by using human intelligence. While science research should continue this endeavor, it has so far largely agreed by majority of scientists that the universe will end up in the stage of no motion stage i.e. entropy. While universe can take care of the purpose; we, the common persons may try to understand the purpose of our own life and try to align it with the laws of nature so that we can be happy. The blogs related to 'PURPOSE' discussed these aspects in details with the outline of the views expressed in the book “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE”.

Based on the books written by Swami Vijnananand (namely, GOD RECONSIDERED and PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE), we saw relevance of his findings in the present context by review and cross checking a few available references.

Not bothering about the concepts concerning God and Universe; even if we come to the limited agenda of our prevailing individual life, we reach to the unique aspiration common to all of us. Whatever country, religion, age, sex or social, financial background we may belong; our priority aspiration is to seek happiness. Be and continue to be happy all along. If we carefully consider the aspect of happiness and search for its essential ingredients, we see that to be happy three things are essential.

First is money. You cannot get means of happiness without money. That is well accepted fact. But we experience that money alone can't make you happy. Money can get you comforts but to enjoy those comforts your body must be healthy. You can buy lot of costly sweets if you have money but can't consume it if your digestive system does not permit or if you have diabetes. So the second thing necessary for the happiness is health. But there is one more thing essential for the happiness and that is your behavior, nature as it is called (nature = the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character). If your nature is good you may be happy even with lesser money and some health limitations but if it is bad you can' be happy even with good wealth and health. So while all the three things are necessary, the weightage comes more on our nature.

Now, who decides our nature? Answer in simple language is MIND. Unless you have good mind you can't have good nature. How do you make your mind good? Basically how do you understand your mind whether it is good or bad? Is there any scientific definition or description of mind available? These are the obvious questions arise if one wants to know more about the MIND.

When it comes to the definition of mind, there is no all accepted agreement as the experts in various disciplines have various views. The important link between mind and body is considered to be the BRAIN. Scientists and philosophers have different considerations on the subject of mind, brain and their relationship.

Mind-brain relationship: Mind-brain relationship has always been a point of debate between neuroscientists and eastern philosophers. Neuroscience believe that in the brain-mind interaction, causality flows in one direction: from brain to mind, which means neural activity underlies every thought and sensation. Eastern philosophers have a different view they feel one can transcend mind. There could also be another possibility of downward interaction, from mind to brain. We require a balanced view as purely material or mental aspect cannot objectively throw light on mind-brain communication. Again, there could be something which will be beyond brain and mind, which is the fundamental focus of spiritualism.  Instead of one-way studies, in modern times, there have been a couple of researches and experiments for the comprehensive view of mind-brain relationship, the neuron-anatomy of compassion. Meditation is one such method controlling mind and brain, having a calming effect on both.

What is the relationship between the mind and the brain? Neuroscientists have known since the nineteenth century that brain structures and mental functions are intimately connected, but the exact relationship between mind and brain always remained a mystery. In the Santiago theory, the relationship between mind and brain is simple and clear. Descartes' characterization of mind as the "thinking thing” is finally abandoned. Mind is not a thing but a process - the process of cognition, which is identified with the process of life. The brain is a specific structure through which this process operates. The relationship between mind and brain, therefore, is one between process and structure.

Just to understand the current situation of the science w.r.t. mind views of some experts in diverse fields are discussed.

1         Series entitled 'Science and Spirituality' in Nature India, (Published online 21 May 2012)

Dr. Pawan K. Dhar (Jan 2012), Professor of Biotechnology at Symbiosis International University, Pune and Hon. Director of the Centre of Systems and Synthetic Biology, University of Kerala

Dr. Pawan Dhar says: Life energy is like an operating system that runs the show but remains unknown. The subject of life energy has largely remained unexplored. As of now, the scientific community swims at the cellular and molecular surface, studying waves here and there and calling them path-breaking discoveries. Mind is what we think of as a buffer between subtle life energies and the gross body. It is like a 'metabolic pathway' that stays between the 'genotype of life energy' and the 'phenotype of the gross body'. It would be nice to scientifically document the contents of the mind to see its dimensions. We see the body, imagine the mind and believe in the life giving substance. This needs to change. Could there be more gross layers and more subtle layers than this naive abstraction? People use terms like consciousness, sub-consciousness, super-consciousness, emotions and awareness to describe life. Though one can play with these terms, in reality we only talk about individual perceptions.

To get a clear understanding of life giving elements, their attributes, their interactions, their structural and functional correlates, the subtle-to-gross pathways, we need to generate additional evidence in the space of existence and extend the intellectual front end of science.

People in the spiritual domain use mind as a lab, intent as approach and intensity as the key. People in the scientific world use a reductionist approach to split a system into constituent elements and weave the information into an integrated model.

In the first approach, the technology exists within the body. In the second, technology exists outside the body.

To find a meeting point of science and spirituality, it would be prudent to find commonalities between both and propose a logical and evidence-based approach that probe deeper into the spiritual space.

2 WHAT IS THE MIND? 

 An article published in the International Journal on World Peace, winter 2007 (http://www.tomkando.com/pdf/WhatIsTheMind.pdf)

Author: Tom Kando is Professor of Sociology at California State University, Sacramento.

The modern world has come to a near- unanimous conception of the human mind as basically the same thing as the brain. This is a monumental and stupid mistake.

The guilt for this error belongs largely to the so-called social sciences, especially to Psychology. These folks have managed to convince the modern world of their stupid belief. As a result, by now, the popular culture, the media and the public all subscribe to this modern-day mythology.

The error made by most psychologists is called reification (from the Latin word rei = “thing”):  This is when you make a thing out of a concept. In other words; when someone makes something real and tangible out of something; which is not so. For example, take the idea of “evil.” When we personify this idea into, say, the “devil,” we reify it. Or take the concept of “society.” When we say that “society is racist,” we reify it, because in reality only people can be racist. There is no such thing as “society,” over and beyond a large collection of individuals.

Psychologists also commit the error of reification when they equate the mind with the brain. They give the mind a substantive material existence. They describe it as “a hunk of meat that…contains about 30 billion cells, called neurons.” But of course that is not at all what the mind is.

 

3 DANA Foundation shares the articles giving information on brain. Excerpts from the following article (issue October 2010)

The Unhealthy Ego: What Can Neuroscience Tell Us About Our ‘Self’?  By Brenda Patoine

Where’s the Ego in Neuroscience?

If ego is loosely defined in psychiatric circles, a neural definition is virtually nonexistent. “Ego doesn’t exist in the brain,” says Kagan. What does exist, he explains, is a brain circuit that controls the intrusiveness of feelings of self-doubt and anxiety, which can modulate self-confidence. But, Kagan says, “We are nowhere near naming the brain circuit that might mediate the feeling of ‘God, I feel great; I can conquer the world.’  I believe it’s possible to do, but no one knows that chemistry or that anatomy.”

Dana Alliance member Joseph LeDoux, Ph.D., a neurobiologist at New York University, has argued that psychological constructs such as ego are not incompatible with modern neuroscience; scientists just need to come up with better ways of thinking about the self and its relation to the brain. “For many people, the brain and the self are quite different,” he writes in The Synaptic Self, where he made the opposite case. For LeDoux it’s a truism that our personality—who we are in totality—is represented in the brain as a complex pattern of synaptic connectivity, because synapses underlie everything the brain does. "We are our synapses," he says.

4 John Templeton Foundation Darwin 200: Evolution and the Ethical Brain (excerpts)

Michael Gazzaniga - Professor of Psychology and Director of the Sage Center of the Study of the Mind at the University of California at Santa Barbara;

Steven Quartz Associate Professor of Philosophy, at Cal Tech University.  He is also the Director of the Brain Mind and Science PhD program

Michael Gazzaniga: Understanding the moment of personal conscious experience, we do not have a clue as to what that is. Everybody in this room by virtue of the fact you are here and experiencing what we are experiencing is in some sense a dualist.  You are looking at all the sub-elements here and you are throwing it into a conscious experience and flipping immediately into that conscious state, what is that?  What is that process?  What is that?  We are so far from understanding something like that and we are not a lot closer to understanding how you see a triangle either by the way. These things are so complex that when you hear the successes in brain science, we are all excited about what we can bring in. Five years ago, I do not think there were more than five experiments on the social processes of the human. Now, through brain imaging techniques, you cannot keep up with it, almost. It is so fast and so wonderful. Having said that though you do not want to oversell it. We are just getting our hands on the ladder here and it is exciting, but, I think, still limited.

 

Steven Quartz:  Yes, to speak to that, we still do not know how a neuron works.  Sometimes we say a neuron is simple or whatever, but, in fact, a neuron is an extraordinary complicated cell.  We do not understand how it integrates information.  We do not understand really how it represents information or what kind of code it utilizes and we certainly do not understand how you put a billion together to generate complex behavior and thought.  So, one of the real challenges is the gap between imaging provides an opportunity to look non-invasively on the human brain and it provides sort of an insight, but we still, the gap between understanding brain activation at the level of imaging and how individual neurons in unison give rise to that, what are the computations involved in that, what are the ways in which information is represented, how does it compute that information, what are the algorithms, what are the processes that give rise to that? It is still completely unknown.

 5.  Ref. Manashakti publication “ Super Procreation”, author – G.S.Kelkar. Page 57,

Conception and Mind: ‘What exactly happens at the moment of conception?’ To find out the answer to this question is rather difficult. However with certain assumptions and logic, science and mathematics we can answer the question. Granted that the moment of conception may not be known; but at least the moment of death is easy to see. Death is the polar opposite of birth, so if we get to know what happens at the time of death; it can be logically deducted that exactly opposite must be happening at the time of conception.

We describe death as follows: “The soul left the body”, “The flame of life was extinguished”, “The body lost the vital force", etc. etc. Briefly, soul, flame, vital force etc. is separated from the body. In scientific terms we can call soul, flame etc. as “energy”, while the body is “matter”.

At the time of death, energy and matter in the human being is separated from each other. Therefore it can be said that at the moment of conception, which is exact opposite of the moment of death, energy and matter must be uniting with each other. So whose energy is this? The answer is: it is that of the entity which wishes to take birth. This energy has been termed as the “organizing mind” (by S. V.) This concept is as follows:

Matter in this case consists of ovum of the male and sperm of the male. The sperm introduces to the ovum, the energy of the one who wishes to take birth. Hence in mathematical terms,

Death = separation of matter (body) and energy (vital force).

And

Birth = union of matter (body) and energy (vital force).

The book further explains the scientific proof of this logical argument.

My comments

While the materialists agree that they yet do not know completely the work of the brain, even the working of neuron, they still insist that mind is nothing but the expression of the brain. Is this stand logical, rational or scientific? ‘You should accept what I say even on the basis unknown to me!’ Any argument of such a nature tends more towards dogmatism than science.

A child has different ‘mind’ other than his father and mother. The conception, i.e. the first existence of the child is union of one cell each from the father and mother. When these two cells unite and the child is conceived it must be the ‘mind’ of the child which must be entering the conceived cell.  So the conceived cell becomes the cell with the mind of a child. When this happens then only the birth process makes progress. (Each intercourse does not yield conception). Obviously it must be the mind’s desire which helps conception and enter the world as new person through the process of birth. This proves that it is the mind that enters the body. And in the later process the brain gets developed. So logically mind precedes body and brain from the initial moment in human life.

Mind rationally explained by Swami Vijnananand

The simple subject ‘mind’ has been messed up by dogmatic views from all kinds of experts.  There is no clear and all agreed definition of mind so far. This is the status after the 1st decade of the 21st century is over,

Foreseeing this problem, way back in 1961, swami Vijnananand (S. V.) studied the mind very rationally. He has provided information regarding the definition, properties, and laws of mind which can conform on the tenets of science and philosophy. We shall see these in a few blogs to follow.

Vijay R. Joshi.

"I have seen GOD” - Swami Vijnananand

                                                                           
 देव दर्शन - Beholding the God                                                                             

कळे आकळे रूप ते ज्ञान होता  I

तेथे  आटली सर्व साक्षी अवस्था I

मना उन्मनी शब्द कुंठीत राहे I

तो गे चि तो राम सर्वत्र पाहे II २०० II

While commenting on the above verse in  मनाचे श्लोक (of Ramdas Swami), Swami Vijnananand says in his his book:-  

Once the stage of full realization is reached i.e. once the knowledge of the highest nature is realized, then you see the God. But at that stage the desire of seeing itself gets diminished. Your mind attains a super high stage, the words get lost. 
It is our usual experience that while we enjoy the sun light we are unable to stare at the sun. If we attempt to stare at the sun, the intense brightness creates sort of darkness in our vision. On this background one can imagine the radiance of the God which is the creator of countless number of such suns. The view of the almighty will not be easy to experience. Also this stage is not easy to reach.

Swami Vijnananand (S. V.) saw the God. 

In 1957, a stage of honest introspection entered in to the life of S.V. (his name was P.R.Bhide before Sannyasa). Friday, the 22nd March' 1957, an enlightening moment arrived in his life. At around 2-30 afternoon, when engaged in normal life routine, all of sudden, a trance moment created an inner message, directing him to work (for the welfare of humanity) on the logic and intellect based path of Science.

He whole heartily accepted the enlightening moment suggested mission. Without any academic background of science he started reading books of science. He mentions that it is an unsolved mystery   for him too; that he could easily grasp the complex details of the subjects hitherto mostly unknown and of no interest at all. The outcome of this marathon efforts resulted in publishing following books under the ‘New Way’ series during the period 1957 to 1962.

PHILOSOPHY TITLES: 

God Reconsidered.

Purpose of the Universe.

What Mind Means.

Science and Philosophy.

CURE TITLES:

Death of the Disease.

Cure Without Medicine.

Cure Yourself.

Rich, Ambitious, Healthy. 

Fortune Titles

New Way to Fortune and Happiness.

Leap to Fortune and Happiness.

Equation of Happiness.

General Titles.

Save your Child from Yourself.

Marx Proves Rebirth.

Sannyasa. 

In his tape recorded message to the seekers before departing for Sannyasa on 21st February' 1963 he says (from note ‘Before Departure’)

“From three centuries back, Homo-sapience increasingly disfavored religious discipline, in preference to its novel tool, science. And now, to the surprise of the twentieth century, science and religion sing in chorus; of course when one restricts to essence of religion.

Friends, after prolonged investigations when science could satisfy me, almost half in contempt, I turned to religious doctrines. I anticipated that it was a matter of hardly a few days to get rid of religious rigmarole (contents in terms of verses, characters, procedures etc.). To my pleasant surprise, the contrary was revealed. Almost every faith, even having a modest backing, lends hand to findings I had traced in the mighty dome of science. On an appropriate investigation, no faith is found to have contradicted implications of science.

A layman imagines science and faith at cross-purpose. I have checked almost scripture by scripture, only to find how basic tenets of various doctrines have forestalled rationalistic surmise. The details are included in the series.”

“Before I published each of my hypotheses, it was without exception, made available to authorities; from whom world's best authorities like Nobel Prize winners, were never excluded. Scientists trained in various universities like (in) U.S.A., Russia, U.K., Germany, Japan discussed problems raised by me either through correspondence or personally. I have no hesitation in asserting that conclusions now reached are hard to be over- looked or counteracted. I am offering last clue to Nature's secret.

This claim is based on two situations science has met. One is limiting speed of matter and the other is principle of indeterminacy. But by the very nature of things these situations in science can never be changed”.

In the ‘Author’s note’ to the book “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE” published in December 1961 S.V. explains the intention behind publishing and communicating his research findings.

"The author makes bold to say. He is on the verge of having Nature’s secret decipher& because he does not wish to risk truth for unwarranted modesty, after all, world has to know Eternal truth one day or the other; the task which God will not condescend to take upon himself, if a personal God exists at all. Nature may flash signals as a ground engineer, but it is for the pilot to be alive to them, avoid crash and land safely. In such a hazard it is the duty of one operator to share; his knowledge with others, without reserve.

Line dividing ego and truth is too thin to be objectively recognized; on my part, I assure that except the ego barely necessary for harmonizing (composing) these 'lines', I entertain none in the present case.

Courage to welcome truth from a contemporary has repeatedly lacked in the past. It is hard to believe that an ascertainable, veritable revelation has enlightened your next-door neighbor on this side of grave, gallows or fire.

Author's findings forbid him to be either pleased by praise or pained by a retort and so he is not scarred of either. Author is fully abreast of the fact that every creature shall pay his own cost for wisdom. And therefore, except bare statement of facts, the author does not feel urged to be enthusiastic or anxious about popularizing his philosophy. He has hitherto overlooked several offers and donations to establish an institute for promotion of these laudable tenets concerning life. For, the real seekers do not insist upon such institutions which take a heavy toll of energy. The more lasting way is to make the investigations available to the public and leave it at that.

“I have seen God” – Swami Vijnananand

In the book “God Reconsidered”, (Chapter 9 page 105) S.V. explains his own experience of beholding the God (देव दर्शन), and what are the efforts necessary to maintain the constant company of the God i.e. Truth.  

“A flabbergasting statement of mine in 1957, evoked riotous bewilderment in the heart of my devout friend; and his face flushed with excitement when I assured him the experience of ‘Darshana’ (Sight of God) on his adherence to simple inexorable (unyielding; unalterable) discipline.

Incidentally to behold (see, look at, observe) God is a very preliminary step, and it constitutes the bottom rung of the ladder towards God,

To catch a glimpse of God,

To go that way,

To reach Him and

To like to stay with Him without a craving to come back,

four steps of which, as I have remarked, to perceive him is but a narrow end of the wedge. When I asked mv zealous friend, "Did all who saw Ram and Krishna reached the status of God?" it dispelled his anxiety about superficial sight of God.

At the moment of imperfections the exceptionally ideals stay clear of God and the moment I embrace truth, for which I esteem God, I experience God in me.

The question is how long I am capable of remaining at that high latitude. And if I lack the sober strength, the more I develop it, the nearer to God do I remain.

Rev. Ramakrishna narrates his experience, "I had to practice all the religions. Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, and I have walked the paths of the different denominations of Hinduism again --of Shakta, Vaishnava, Vedanta and other sects. And I have found that it is the same God towards whom all are travelling only they are coming through diverse ways."

Of that God, primary energy, no description other than Neutrality, can excel”.

From that moment in March 1957 till the last moment of life on 18^th Nov 1993, S.V. lived his mission with full commitment to the welfare of humanity. In one of his discourses he spelled mission to the seekers as follows:-

We often experience that Mind is engaged in conflict with mind, also in conflict with body.

Individual is in conflict with the family.

Friends, neighbors, social groups, casts, religions, countries all are in constant inbuilt conflicts, open or hidden.

Human is in conflict with nature, also in conflict with humanity.

Conflict prevails everywhere…

We learnt to fly like a bird, float and swim like a fish but a person never learnt to behave with other person with empathy compassion and humility.

We should endeavor to bring about this change.

A large numbers of Manashakti seekers are convinced by S.V. message and have committed to work for the mission. The efforts are in progress far last over thirty years spearheaded by The Manashakti Ashram at Lonavala, Pune, India.

Vijay R. Joshi.

GOD RECONSIDERED - 2

Rational concept by Swami Vijnananand

The need of evolving a God concept rationally acceptable was felt in the Templeton conversation as seen in earlier articles. In this article we see that a comprehensive vision on the similar manner penned by Swami Vijnananand in his book published in 1962.

Here are some excerpts from the first two chapters of his book “God Reconsidered”.

Eight Questions asked, theists to answer: To fence around the circumstances the earnest fold of devotees must put aside their orthodox, rude gestures and should study the points on which God is attacked. The chief amongst them presuming He exists, merely for the sake of argument is:

    God is deceptive.

    He is partial.

    He is mystic.

    He supports cruelty.

    He encourages lawlessness.

    He is egoistic.

    He employs double dealing.

    He disfavors rationalism.

The list can be extended considerably. However the gist of disapproval or condemnation of the disbelief, skepticism or doubts is covered in these 8 points. Again these unfavorable comments or criticism can be reworded.

(2) Right of agnostics to demand answer.

Agnostics have a right to insist for answer. By virtue of being victims of a long sufferings for centuries at the hands of God-believers they have acquired this privilege. Hundreds of rebellion against God sacrificed broke on the wheel, as if, Walter Malone’s axiom in their heart, “An honest man cannot surrender an honest doubt”.

(3) Task of God believers easy if they deal with it in 3 ways.

Obviously the ego of God believers and revengeful attitude of the agnostics confront the efforts of reconciliation. Unless one keeps his mind balanced, impartial, open, alert, honest, straight forward, even a simple approach to a formidable question looks improbable. Both sides have suffered insults so they are dogmatic, having their own inflexible convictions ingrained in them. The task calls for Herculean efforts, none the less, it is achievable at the cost of sustained efforts. The problem can be attacked from three fronts to ensure success.

3A) First term-of the truce, pending final verdict is to nurture a belief in the intrinsic earnestness of the atheists.

3B) Onus to prove the gaps in the creed of the non-believers rests on the theist. The materialist should be logically led to the conclusion that his own pillar-stone of philosophy is as shaky as that of God’s missionary. That is to a certain extent a negative proof, though by no means it is lacking of any purpose, intention.

3C). Therefore, what could bring home a perpetual reconciliation is fundamental endorsement to the concepts.

(4) Primary need to admit gap:

To begin, has the believer himself ascertained true nature of God? If not, it looks imperative for him to honestly say.so. Next case for analysis by the enthusiastic devotee is disparities in various revelations. It is the theist’s own burden to furnish convincing reasons for such, fragrant diversities, instead of wasting energy in insisting on excelling supremacy of his own pious faith. And does the notion of each religious follower, that his creed is a chosen one among all, stand to a dependable test?

(5) Sufferings of Religious leaders-a lesson:

Glance over the life sketches of all the religious leaders. As chosen men of the Almighty, were they spared of agony and despair? What could be the purpose of God in throwing his trusted messengers on Pins and needles, though temporarily? Does the Divinity aim at verification of his prophet’s tenacity?  And then "does it not curtail God of His limitless capacity to know everything?

Followers of all faiths are faced with such obscure perplexities as all major sects are studied one after another.

(6) Suffering of followers disproves extrajudicial grace, prayer etc. In addition to leaders themselves, the fold of followers-some of the most ardent amongst them; tell a similarly sorry tale.

Illustrations from Hinduism, Shintoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism etc. are provided in the book and the conclusion says:

There is nothing obscure in torch-bearers of God being in peril, when-a rigorous law is presumed. None could appreciate God to plead, "Oh men, I punish you for every wrong; but I shall pardon myself or my flatterer for the open follies."

(7) Non-believers, un-tortured:

On the background of a parade of pious, persecuted spiritualists, comparatively rewarded lives of host of mundane materialists manifest marked contrast. Quite obviously, materialists too have to counteract defeat, disease and death. The question at issue is: do they suffer on account of their atheism? A negative answer comes back. The declared skeptic individual, far from being victimized by God or Nature, is found basking in the sunshine. It appears then that Nature's code of granting gratification is governed by other rules than a lay God believer imagines.

(Many such illustrations from different part of the world are provided to substantiate this point).

Indeed, one wonders why believers fight shy to accept a lawful God in preference to a kind God. Further investigations pronounce the flagrant truth without a stint of vagueness how half-hearted, pious beggars have spoild the name of Good God.

The theist rejoins the non-believer, (Answers to the questions above).

A few tentative, probable answers to the eight charges leveled against the Supreme Being are attempted as below, leaving an overall reply to be spread over the entire course of the treatise.

1. Is God deceptive?

That God has deceived pro-pounders of various religions by presenting Himself differently is inherently on unsound reasoning.

The concept of God implanted in those who believe Him in a certain singularly immutable form takes its root from prophets or Messiahs on whom they rely. It was, perhaps, not the issue of understanding the highest truth (which of course each one of them did perceive and promote), but it was the level of listeners' ability.

A professor of mathematics realizes the gaps in Euclidean Geometry but withholds revealing them to the lower class. The instructor of physics already is acquainted with modifications in Newtonian mechanics nevertheless he abstains from introducing them to juniors. On similar grounds, expositors of religions had tenable reasons to reserve the highest knowledge from the commoners at that level of grasp. The God- sent assured themselves that at an advanced stage, either the new Messiah would come or that the craving creatures could learn their own lessons and thrust forward.

2. Is God partial, as He created inequalities?

Disciples of God are shrouded in ignorance about 'Why' of the Universe and God, as much as Scientists are, though both continue to offer explanations. Consequently, there is no substantial ground for scientists to scorn at the credulity of the believer. And to come to the point at issue, science concedes that no particle of matter is exactly like the other, in as much as every particle occupies different space (and of course, time).

'Reason why' of it is beyond the comprehension of scientists. They should allow the same latitude to the other side.

3. Is God mystic?

An agnostic commands a willing support from a rationalist in his defiance of obscure mystics of various schools but, to call God Himself a mystic is incorrect. He is not more mystic than the 'hero' of the ultra-materialists who is declared so; ‘matter’ in its last analysis assumes character of a wave. The teams of researchers are yet far from the knowledge about the fundamental nature of the so-called matter. As for matter itself, intentionally it does not cloak itself in mystery; God also does not. Both hypotheses mark out our own limitations.

4. Does God support cruelty?

It is true that a scientist avoid wordings such as as 'kind' or 'cruel' Nature. Nature is neutral. God shares no other description, but when these adjectives were employed, as point above explains, it was easier for the masses, common people to conceive of God in that way. That theme awaits amends and if a dogmatist is unwilling to adjust, he could be safely ignored.

5. Does God encourage lawlessness?

In no system of society including Marxists; criminals are absent. Injustice prevails at the higher levels, though as an exception. No sane and responsible critic, however, assails the institution of 'Government' itself and as a whole, in favor of anarchy. The code of conduct is framed. Its violation is and should be punished. Creator sponsoring lawlessness then amounts to abuse of terms.

6. Is God Egoistic?

Answer goes with '4' above.

7. Does God employ double dealing?

This leads to a controversy on reconciliation between causation and free-will. In a democratic set up, do we not curtail individual liberty on acceptance of causal code promulgated by the State? Is there any fundamental contradiction between the exercise of law and liberty that gives encouragement to a citizen to lift up self? The more balance between the two is struck, the better. (The simile is to be taken in a limited sense.)

Appendix of this work to a modest degree, Appendix A of 'Purpose of the Universe' to a great extent and 'Science and Philosophy', yet another title of this series, particularly its Appendix, touch this problem in all its perspective. (Swami Vijnananand (S.V.) has dealt in details on aspect such as Causality, Free Will, Entropy, Death, Rebirth, Happiness, Disease, Nature’s Rules and Human Life etc. in his other books under the series of “New Way Philosophy”).

8. Does God disfavor rationalism?

A rationalist accepts religion, not because of any dogma; but because it can be reconciled with the spirit or essence of science. Therefore, in case an assertion in religious doctrine supporting reason stands refuted in some other or in the same text, it is for the dogmatic to explain the odd situation. It is not the responsibility of an open-minded who shares belief in religions only because of (and to the limit of) their rational character. No entity other than God should be responsible for having equipped man with reason, his most enviable tool, which places him above the animal world, Science comprehends narrow scope of human intellect; yet puts it to service, it being the best available contrivance (plan, design, device) having potentialities to develop itself. And, argues science, its ignorance is no knowledge of the benighted (un-enlightened, intellectually ignorant). Bigoted (intolerant) spokesmen of religious creeds invite serious setback to human lot deprived of use of intellect - as the whole of chapter three (of this book) reiterates.

Has God Ego, Because His Devotees Pray Him?

(l) Is prayer to God to get what we need?

Points 6, 7, 8 above and conclusion of chapter nine of the book under discussion conclusively disclaim wishful prayers from God's domain.

(2) Should we pray so that we should remember Him?

The Almighty would appreciate the whole of your life turned into a Prayer. Instead, the devotees reserve days for committing sins and minutes for prayer, in the hope that the latter will cancel the former. A hollow mockery of prayer indeed! Prayer assumes some meaning only when the devotee approaches God after doing his duty as a formality. It is self-assurance of being conscious of the divine code. In any case, mechanical prayer is devaluation of essence of prayer.

(3) Prayer only after due discharge of obligation.

Prayer and duty as its price are linked up and indeed prayer becomes thanksgiving for intrinsic justice in causal laws. The seeker, at highly elevated level of his progress himself ceases to Pray for worldly benefits. In any case, no prophet has ever unconditionally prescribed a mechanical prayer.

Kindness of God, Implicit!

Beyond all questions, God is gracious; but it does not extend beyond the range of equitable regulations, He has laid down. "Every cause shall bear an appropriate effect, no more, no less" pronounces He. And for the benefit of an elevated paragon He adds, "When bewildered of or tired of 'effects', produce no cause itself."

What a candid piece of advice! The excelling beauty of it is: after the preliminary hint, he interferes no more. He dominates no way like a despot. His rules have crowned each man as his own master. There lies His infinite benevolent character and nowhere else does it exist, nor is it necessary.

The headings of the other chapters of the book are:

Chapter 3    Gaps in Religion.

Chapter 4    Purpose and Partiality.

Chapter 5    No cruelty and ego. Absolute Kindness.

Chapter 6    Causality and Existence beyond life.

Chapter 7    Is cycle of existence valid?

Chapter 8    Neutrality, Truth, Knowledge, Causality.

Chapter 9    Science and God, Conclusions.

Appendix A   God believer answers Non-believer.

Appendix B   Follow five ways to God or redeem yourself from the curse of knowledge.

Vijay R. Joshi.

GOD RECONSIDERED

We note that during the conversation on God Belief, there may be rare sharp statement by either side, but the underlying message is to reach an accord to ensure avoiding the harm due to extremism on either side. Here one point is worth noting that the concepts such as God, Religion or Science and Technology are not at any fault but the wrong attitude of its use by certain people at the helm of affairs is the reason for creating the harm.

Re conciliatory approach to the accord is seen reflected in the following statements from the conversation.

The polemics (controversies) of believers show an ignorance of science, what it offers to improve life, and the polemics of fundamentalist atheists ignore the wisdom found in religious texts. Both seem threatened by diversity and wish to erase any doubt under a blanket of blind belief.

It is true, of course, that organized religions do not point to a single, coherent view of the nature of God. But to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity...

You must find a science- friendly, science-compatible God. First, try the pantheon (a temple dedicated to all the gods.) of available Creators. Inspect thoroughly. If none fits the bill, invent one.

Many eminent practitioners of science have successfully persuaded themselves that there is no logical contradiction between faith and belief by finding a suitable God, or by clothing traditional God appropriately.

The schism (division or disunion or split) between science and religion can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution from a supernatural, theistic God to a new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe. This healing may also require a transformation of science to a new scientific worldview with a place for the ceaseless creativity in the universe that we can call God.

This sentiment of the thinkers pronounced through an august discussion organized by Templeton Foundation in the first decade of the 21^st century was sensed by an Indian prophetic thinker Swami Vijnananand about 60 years ahead. He has given an extensive plan of action for the truce between science and religion in his book, GOD RECONSIDERED (Feb. 1962), with rational definition of God, with which all faiths, including Marxists, keep in peace.

GOD RECONSIDERED

Let us try to understand the dictionary meanings of the terms “subjective” and “objective”

Subjective (adjective)

- existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought).

- Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

- placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

- Philosophy. Relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

- relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

Objective (adjective)

- Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

- Intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

- being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject.

- of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

To discover Truth, the endeavor of Humanity

Both Science and Religion endeavor to discover the ultimate Truth. This should be the obvious aim of both because the Truth can bring about the real welfare of humanity. Whether it is science or religion, the search would be carried out by a person. In other words to reach the Truth (objective reality), the means is a person (i.e. subject). While ‘objectivity’ is the target, 100% elimination of subjectivity by any person is impossible. Therefore to reach the Truth the theists and atheists will have to look for combining the objectivity and subjectivity optimally. A subject i.e. a person cannot totally eliminate subjectivity. He / She can endeavor to minimize it. That means to the extent a person can work with detached mind, the outcome can be considered as a rational or optimally objective, nearing Truth.

Truth defined.

With the above explanation at the back-ground, Rev. Swami Vijnananand defined Truth as follows. (Ref page 179, on book “GOD RECONSIDERED”)

In spite of all pretenses man knows the truth and so God. Without accepting a bait of another controversy on the nature of truth, the seeker can gain his point restricting to definition of Truth in this way:

Truth is an objective reality, subjectively known, told with a detached mind.

It may be accepted on a simple ground that the definition is self-explanatory.

All faiths, including Marxism, lend hand to truth. A commoner on the lowest rung of the ladder is conscious of its all-embracing validity.

At the opening page of the book author describes GOD

God is not just, because he is not Unjust

God is not Kind, as he is not Cruel.

He does not bless, since He does not curse.

He is the First Cause in sense an effect is produced, when He is abandoned.

God dwells in an idol as also in the hammer that breaks it

He doesn't live in the blind craving or in hate for Him.

Highlights of the book “GOD RECONSIDERED”, a blood-less revolution

Science accepts God on terms. Eleven religions and radical philosophies point out how kernel of their doctrines have forestalled these terms and have incorporated spirit of their requirements in respective hypotheses. Get acquainted with rational definition of God, with which all faiths, including Marxists, keep in peace. Long - awaited truce between science and dogma is reached in this work. Every page reveals logic, study and synthesis.

Here are some flashes, selected at random.

A rationalist accepts religion, not because of any dogma; but because it can be reconciled with the spirit or essence of science. Therefore, in case an assertion in religious doctrine supporting reason stands refuted in some other or in the same text, it is for the dogmatic to explain the odd situation. It is not the responsibility of the open-minded who shares belief in religions only because of (and to the limit of) their rational character." (Point VIII chapter two.)

Science, equally like religion, is bewitched by confounding contradictions; so much so that materialist scientists are inclined to formulate Law of contradiction itself. (Point 3, chapter 9)

A positive, constructive approach is the urgent requirement, lest God himself should change over to the so called materialist. After all, God too wants to be in good company. (Concluding sentence, chapter 3)

Instead of pronouncing high ideals and insulting them by non-observance, new way philosophy paves the way to slow practice without violating tenets of science as well as religions. (Point 2F, appendix B)

Seer’s song

Employing the logical intelligence of Science, and service based dedication of Religion, for the healthy life for a common person, Swami Vijnananand in his poem titled ‘Extremes meet’ says:

“Speak Truth’ said religions;

From it science was solace.

‘Order please’ said science so

Behold the message. Undo wrong,

Science and religions sing the same song”.

Vijay R. Joshi.