Its a tricky but very old query. For centuries the debate is on. Whether God Exists or Its Just An Illusion?
I feel the answer can come from within only. Others can give you inputs but only you can answer this question.
I am reminded of a short story my mother told me years ago. Due to the space constraints I shall re-tell same in brief.
There was a small ship with 12 men. 6 believers in god and six die hard non-believers. During a journey through sea they encounterd a fiery sea-storm. The ship started to sink.
The six staunch believers started praying and asked others to join them telling it was the only way to save them. The six non-believers set out to steer the ship and exhorted others to throw their books and join them saying they will have to help themselves as there is no god. The six believers told them to fear god’s fury and refrain from making such comments.
The six non-believers started attempts to save their lives. They repaired the torn mast, held the broken poles, threw away water with their hands, held the steering firm in turbulent waters, kept on balancing the ship on rocking waves, etc etc. After a long struggle those six non-believers steered the ship to safety away from the storm with their courage, hard work and dedication whereas those six believers just kept on praying with increasing fervour.
What next?
As the ship reached shores safely, those six hard believers threw away their books and idols and lay down at the feet of the six who steered the ship to safety saying that they have seen the true saviour in them and no longer believe in the gods they worshipped earlier.
The other six silently closed their eyes, folded their hands and sat out in silent prayers. If they had not done what they did, the ship would have sunk without doubt. But they told others that all through their efforts they could feel that there was something beyond their powers and understanding which kept their spirits alive and made them do what they did and finally guided and helped them steer the ship safely through that storm. That moment onwards all six of them started believing in the god whose very presence they had experienced.
Whether god is there or not is all a matter of life’s experiences and exposures. All I can say is we should be open to all the ideas. Experiences make believers of non-believers and vice-versa. As I said earlier, the answer cannot be imposed, it has to come from within....
27 December 2011
It is with reference to two comments.
First: "at the end of the story u can see that those who used to blv in god become non-beleiver aisa kyu hua god me unka vishwass kyu dagmga gya???"
And Second: "प्रश्न पूछने में न संकोच करो, न उनके उत्तर ढूँढ़ने में आलस करो।"
Call it co-incidence or what... second comment is the answer to the query in the first comment. Those who used to believe in god earlier simply followed what they were told. They thought god is in their books or in their prayers or in their hymns.... they never asked a question and never tried to find an answer. They had no conviction and did not feel comfortable with their belief.
The other set of sailors probably did not find their answers earlier hence did not believe in god earlier. But their experience gave them the answers they sought and they started believing in god.
This answer can come through experience, discussion, self-study or even self-analysis.
29 December 2011
With due respects to the contributions of Mr Hawking, I beg to differ from his conclusion about god. God may or may not be there but Mr Hawking's logic is, simply weird if I may use the word.
Last year I had written a few lines on this topic in an open letter to Mr Hawking on my blog. I am attaching a link here:
http://rkbasatta.blogspot.com/2010/09/god-did-not-create-universe-says.html
3 January 2012
मुझे एक छोटी सी कहानी याद दिला दी जो कुछ समय पहले मेरी भांजी ने मुझे सुनाई थी. एक अविश्वासी (‘rational’ non-believer) वैज्ञानिक को एक बार किसी exhibition में बुलाया गया. वहाँ उन्होंने हमारे solar system का एक नमूना देखा. वो उससे काफी प्रभावित हुए. जब उन्होंने पूछा की इसे किसने बनाया है तो उन्हें बताया गया की इसे किसी ने नहीं बनाया ये तो उनकी लैब में खुद-ब-खुद बन गया. वो वैज्ञानिक यह मानने के लिए तैयार नहीं था. उसने कहा की यह हमारे सोलर सिस्टम से इतना मिलता जुलता है कि वो ये बिलकुल नहीं मान सकता कि इसे किसी ने नहीं बनाया है और ये खुद बन गया है. उसने फिर कहा कि इसे जरूर किसी ने बनाया है और वो उससे मिलना चाहता है.
तब उस exhibition के प्रायोजक ने उन scientist को confront किया और कहा कि यह एक छोटा सा नमूना है जो हमारे सोलर सिस्टम जैसा लगता है मगर उसके मुकाबले में कुछ भी नहीं है पर आप यह मानने के लिए तैयार नहीं हैं कि इसे किसी ने नहीं बनाया और आप अनुरोध कर रहे हैं कि इसके बनाने वाले से आपको मिलाया जाये. दूसरी तरफ आप लगातार यह हठ कर रहे हैं कि हमारा असली सोलर सिस्टम, जो कि इस नमूने से कहीं बड़ा, मजबूत और complex है, किसी ने नहीं बनाया और वह खुद बन गया..... क्या इन दोनों बातों में विरोधाभास नहीं है?.......
खैर यह तो एक कहानी है और इसी प्रकार दोनों तरफ से कहानियां बनायीं व सुनाई जा सकती हैं. इस कहानी में भी फिर उस वैज्ञानिक ने क्या जवाब दिया यह नहीं पता..... लेकिन हाँ यह बिलकुल सही है कि किसी को मानने या नकारने में हमें सिर्फ मतों, भावनाओं व अधूरे ज्ञान से हट कर चिंतन, अध्ययन व मंथन से किसी निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचना होगा.
5 January 2012
मैं खुद इस सवाल का definite answer ढूँढ रहा हूँ.
मेरी और scientific approach में अंतर यह है कि science यह लेकर कर चलती है कि जब तक यह सिद्ध न हो जाए माना न जाये जबकी मैं कुछ सवालों के probable जवाब लेकर चल रहा हूँ की जब तक वे dissaprove न हो जाएँ उन्हें छोड़ा न जाए.
Scientists अपनी रिसर्च के आधार पर नहीं बल्कि अब तक की अपनी पहुँच के आधार पर ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को नकारते हैं. अपने अभी तक के ज्ञान से वे ईश्वर को नहीं सिद्ध कर पाए हैं इस लिए नकारते हैं जबकि असलियत में ये उनका नकारना नहीं है बल्कि वे अभी न तो prove कर पाए हैं न dis-approve. They are merely in a state of denial.
ईश्वर है या नहीं ये अलग बात है मगर ये reasoning कि क्योंकि science अभी तक ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को सिद्ध नहीं कर पायी है तो हम ये मान लें कि ईश्वर नहीं है, मैं एक मजबूत आधार नहीं मानता. आज से कुछ समय पहले तक हम बहुत कुछ नहीं जानते थे मगर वे सब थे. किसी ने x-ray ढूँढी तो हम जानने लगे... किसी ने ultravoilet rays ढूँढी तो हमें पता चला.... मगर ये x-rays, ultravoilet rays, infrared rays ये तो सदा से रही होंगी... इस तरह से आग की खोज के बाद से अब तक हर एक चीज़ धीरे धीरे ‘science & scientists’ की समझ व पहचान में आई पर थी तो वे सदा से. तो इस लिए इस logic को कि अभी तक scientifically जो बात सिद्ध नहीं हुई है हमें उसे नहीं मानना चाहिए मैं सही नहीं समझता.
या तो science उसे सिद्ध करे या उसका न होना सिद्ध करे, सिर्फ नकारना प्रयाप्त नहीं है.
दूसरे अगर हम logic की ही बात करें तो logically ‘God’ के अस्तित्व को deny बेशक करते हों पर disapprove तो logic नहीं कर पाई है.
हमारे ऋषि मुनियों ने केवल विश्वास के भरोसे ही भगवान को नहीं माना है. उन्होंने सवाल उठाया, चिंतन किया, अध्ययन किया, मंथन किया, logic के सामने परखा, सभी practical inputs और अनुभवों का समावेश किया और तब उन निष्कर्षों पर पहुंचे.
हमें भी उस अवस्था से गुजरना है तभी हमारा संकल्प मजबूत होगा. वर्ना सिर्फ विश्वास या सिर्फ अप्रयाप्त scientific ज्ञान के आधार पर हम चाहे ‘हाँ’ कहें या ‘ना’, हमारे विचारों में वो conviction नहीं होगी.
5 January 2012
Theory of Big Bang neither affirms nor denies the presence of God. There is nothing in it against basic concept of God as explained in Shruties. There are various other theories about creation of universe propounded in some later scriptures and smritis including Quran and Bible. Theory of Big Bang goes against these speculative theories but it neither questions nor answers the basic query as to the existence of God, Bhagwan, Parmeshwar etc.
Professor Hawking has given his idea: "इस दुनियां का निर्माण करने का कारण ईस्वर नहीं ,बल्कि भौतिक प्रक्रिया ही हैं ,क्योंकि प्रयोगों से भौतिक पदार्थ, जैविक पदार्थों में बदले जा सकते हैं". But Professor Hawking is mum on the basic question as to WHO started or WHO is controlling that bhoutic prakriya which converts physical bodies into biological bodies.
I had put this question before Professor Hawking in my open letter. I am reproducing the concluding part of that letter here:
"Reading your statement as a whole, ‘God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics’, I get an idea as if you are saying , “Mom did not cook the meal and the dinner on my table was an inevitable consequence of the effect of heat on raw food…..”. How true. How true Mr. Hawking, yet how incomplete and how immature, and how insensitive. Purely from the periscope of your so called science yes, it is physics, chemistry or biology at work. Mom’s preparation of food and to put it in oven was an inevitable consequence of the laws of chemistry working in her brain releasing those chemicals at the right time to make her prepare the meal mechanically for her biological offspring. It is as simple in your view.
"However, sir I assure you there is a lot more to it than mere chemistry and physics. We would be well advised not to speak of that unless we understand that fully. If we ignore this basic thing I don’t think we can do our mom or the god any harm but we sure stand to lose our own reputation and credibility.
"Please think about it.
"Sincerely,
A believer beyond physics, chemistry and biology."
5 January 2012
My comments or my views are never against science or the scientists. My objection is to their suppositions on subjects and issues beyond their reach. They are doing an experiment and I am fully with them on this issue. I was as curious as any to know the results of those highly ambitious CERN experiments, LHC et al… My objection is not to their experiments or their theory of Big Bang…. But to their conclusion that success of their theory in any way dis-proves God.
I have full respect for Theoretical Physicist Stephen Hawking as far as his contributions to science are concerned and read his articles with interest but when he dabbles on issues beyond Physics I want him to be a little careful. When he says that the conclusion of his theory is that there is no God he sounds like someone making tea and then saying that preparation of tea proves a game of cricket does not exist. Or like Shahrukh Khan saying that Gavaskar knows nothing about T20 Cricket. He is not conducting experiments to prove or disprove existence of God then how he draws this conclusion from his experiments that there is no God. It is really what surprises me. And this is the reason I question his concepts about God. I am sorry if it gives an impression that I am questioning the science itself. No. I have never questioned 10,000 scientists on their knowledge of science. I have questioned one of them who, to arouse interest before launch of his book, makes a nasty comment out of blue about existence or non-existence of God. I don’t claim a definite answer to this concept of God but I have those basic questions about Professor Hawking's theory of God.
Secondly as far as diseases are concerned, well may be science knows the answer and may be that diseases are not caused by curse of god… but then science is yet to explain why a healthy lady gives birth to a crippled son, why one of the twins is born blind and other healthy, why one is born on a heap of garbage and other on a golden bed, why one newly born is left to die under worst conditions and why other one is pampered with all facilities one can imagine. These are just a few issues. There is a lot which science does not explain, does not have a clue to. And God is one of these issues which is beyond physics, chemistry or biology.
But at the same time it is also wrong to give an impression that science is against the theory of god. Science is against the concept of God as propounded by Christianity, but not against a realistic view of God as explained in holy scriptures like Shruties compiled and finalized by thousands of rishis and munies over thousands of years or so.
I have never questioned the wisdom of any scientist over the issues of science. But I wish they also understand that there are worlds beyond science like arts, humanity, politics, philosophy and SPIRITUALITY etc etc. I have not questioned them on science and I expect them not to question the wisdom of thousands of thinkers, philosphores, rishis and munies over matters of spirituality ie matters of their specialisation.
To write-off God we should not quote examples of andh-vishwasis. Poor or rich, anyone believing that god will give him everything without his efforts, is a psuedo-believer and his belief is likely to be shattered the moment his ship is rocked by turbulent waves. Spirituality never teaches that one can get everything merely by praying, rather it says very boldly “utho parth gandiv sambhalo”. Unless Parth gets up and does his ‘karma’ he will not get that support from God, he will not attain to moksha. And at the same time, having lifted his tools, if he feels that his victory is because of his efforts alone then also he is not fully aware as to what all has contributed to his victory. It is really a complex issue beyond the realms of known science. I really don't see any conflict in science and spiritualism. They actually compliment each other.
5 January 2012
Science says it is because of (1) genetic defect, (2) chromosome defect, (3) parents did not earn, (4) parents did not work. Fine explanation as per science. But does anyone of these reasons explain the sufferings of that newly born child? Because his father did not earn or work or his parents had some genetic or chromosomal defects so that child had to suffer right from his birth. But why did one child had to suffer and why not other? Why was that child born with a genetic defect or chromosomal defect or to poor parents or to non-working parents? How does science explain that?
And as far as some Dictums are concerned, the least I can say is none of these mis-leading dictums has scriptural sanction. We inadvertently collect all bad examples.
Scriptures say:
उद्यमेन हि सिध्दयन्ति कार्याणि न मनोरथैः।
न हि सुप्तस्य सिंहस्य प्रविशन्ति मुखे मृगाः॥
(उद्यम से ही कार्य सिध्द होते हैं, मन के घोड़े दौडाने यानी आलस से नहीं। कभी-भी सोये हुए सिंह के मुख में मृग स्वयं प्रवेश नहीं करते।)
Shrimad Bhagwad Gita says:
कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन |
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूमा ते सन्गोस्त्वकर्मणि ||
So on and so forth. Scriptures never say all that is given in misleading dictums.
Secondly I agree no believer will give you a million on your assurance of your returning it in next birth. Does that dis-prove God. Does this one act of a believer has such a strong bearing on the existence of God itself? Any one aware of the mechanics of re-birth will neither make nor will accept such an offer. Believers know they are not sure to meet in next birth, not sure to remember their deal in next birth, not sure of date and place of their respective next births. So how can they enter in such a deal?
Finally yes one can earn money without remembering god, but then earning money is not the sole aim of one's life. Money, food clothes are the basic or the physiological needs of life at the lowest wrung of the famous "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" pyramid. On top of this five story pyramid is 'Self Actualisation', with 'safety', 'social' and 'self-esteem' being at the second, third and fourth wrung respectively. Rising to that Self actualisation or the spiritual stage in one's life is not that easy. In an ordinary persons life that stage comes after passing through and satisfying various other needs of life. I fully agree with the last line in the last comment: "While the question on faith comes when one is full of stomach and have some knowledge", and, as Maslow would like to add, having satisfied one's physiological, safety, social and self-esteem needs.
6 January 2012
Anecdotes or short stories are fine to clear a concept but not specific individual cases as there are a number of things involved including character and personal integrity of that indivisual and availability of complete facts about that case. Discussing personalities won’t take us anywhere. One flop baba or one sham yogi takes out of god only as much as one kidney selling Doctor or one road-side quack takes away from the father of medicine Charaka or father of surgery Sushruta or the father of western medicine Hippocrates. As a failed Doctor does not prove or dis-prove Charak, Sushruta or Hippocrates similarly a failed Yogi or a failed spiritual leader does not prove or dis-prove god. We must focus on the concepts.
7 January 2012
Someone said:
“कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन |
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूमा ते सन्गोस्त्वकर्मणि ||
was the 6000 Years old dictum.and another name of satisfaction to accept the failure,bhagwan kee yahi marzi hai ,maine to koshish karli ,fal prati(success) to bhagwan ki marji se hi hogi)”
मेरे विचार से गीता का ये श्लोक, गीता का सबसे मशहूर पर सबसे ज्यादा mis-interpreted श्लोक है. और इस गलत अनुवाद से कहीं न कहीं धर्म को नुक्सान भी हुआ है. इसे कई तरह से mis-interpret किया गया है जैसे....
‘करम किये जा फल कि इच्छा मत कर’...
’तू कर्म किये जा फल मैं तुझे अपनी मर्जी से दूंगा... तेरी सफलता मेरी मर्जी पर निर्भर करती है न कि तेरे efforts पर’...
‘कर्म करने तक ही तेरा अधिकार है, उसका फल मांगने का अधिकार नहीं है’...
इस तरह कई ऐसे अनुवाद हैं जिन्होंने इस श्लोक का मतलब ही बदल दिया. अब उन सब को छोड़ कर देखें कि इसका मतलब क्या है.
इस श्लोक में भगवान श्री कृष्ण कह रहे हैं कि कर्म पर तुम्हारा सीधा अधिकार/ नियंत्रण है पर उस कर्म से उपजने वाले फल पर तुम्हारा सीधा नियंत्रण नहीं है.
हम केवल कर्म को ही control कर सकते हैं. फल तो उस कर्म के हिसाब से खुद हमें मिलेगा. न वो भगवान की ‘मर्जी’ से और न ही हमारे direct control या हमारी इच्छा से.
भगवान के कथन के अनुसार कर्म और फल का सम्बन्ध ऐसे है जैसे हमारा एक केतली चुनना, उसमें पानी डालना, उसे आंच पर रखना... ये सब हमारे हाथ में है. हम चाहें तो ये कर्म करें, न चाहें तो ना करें. हम चाहे उस पानी को उबालें चाहे ना उबालें. हम चाहें तो उसमें पत्ती डालें चाहे ना डालें. चीनी डालें ना डालें. दूध डालें ना डालें. दूध, चीनी, पत्ती कम डालें, ज्यादा डालें, ताजे डालें खराब डालें इत्यादि. ये सब हमारे पूरे नियंत्रण में है. पर अगर हमने ये सब किया तो इसका फल हमारे सीधे नियंत्रण में नहीं है. हमारे काम और मेहनत से इसका नतीजा निकलेगा. ये एक अच्छी चाय बन सकती है, एक खराब चाय बन सकती है, एक दवा या काढ़ा बन सकती है, कड़वा जहर बन सकती है... वगैरह वगैरह, पर हम चाहे कितनी इच्छा करलें इस विधि से हमें एक प्लेट ‘हलवा’ नहीं मिल सकता. ना ही भगवान हमारे इन कर्मों के फल के रूप में खुद अपनी मर्जी से हमें ‘हलवा’ बना कर देंगे. इस विधि या कर्म से चाय बनती है तो फल हमें एक कप चाय के रूप में ही मिलेगा. हलवा बनाने के लिए दूसरे कर्म करने पड़ेंगे. कर्म पर हमारा सीधा अधिकार है फल पर नहीं.....
इसी श्लोक में आगे भगवन कहते हैं कि आप अपने नियत कर्म करते रहो. कर्मों के फल की उम्मीद से कर्म ना करो... फल तो कर्मों के हिसाब से ही मिलना है.... साथ ही ‘मा ते सन्गोस्त्वकर्मणि’ भगवान कहते हैं कि तेरी कर्म ना करने में भी आसक्ति ना हो...
ये श्लोक कहीं भी हमें असफल होने पर भी ‘संतुष्ट’ रहने को नहीं कहता. यह तो हमें कर्म के लिए ही प्रेरित करता है. ये श्लोक कहीं नहीं कहता कि भगवान की यही मर्ज़ी है... ये श्लोक तो यही कहता है कि अगर बबूल का पेड़ लगाया तो बबूल ही होगा आम नहीं... आम खाने हैं तो आम वाला काम करना होगा. बहुत साधारण और साफ़ बात. नहीं क्या?
वास्तव में ये अपने आप में एक बहुत ही गूढ़ विषय है और पूरी की पूरी किताब इस एक श्लोक पर लिखी जा सकती है.......
ये तो थी इस श्लोक के interpretation की बात. लेकिन दूसरी बात ध्यान में रखने वाली ये है कि इन श्लोकों के आधार पर हम अपने आप को, अपने कर्मों को सुधार सकते हैं... भगवान के होने या ना होने को ये श्लोक सिद्ध नहीं करते. भगवान का अस्तित्व एक श्लोक, एक किताब, या ऐसे कुछ एक ग्रंथों पर नहीं टिका... वो एक बहुत बड़ा concept है जिसे गूढ़ अध्ययन के बाद ही समझा जा सकता है...
8 January 2012
Further it is said
"Same is dictum in sanskrit verse which do not proves god ,but proves efforts
उद्यमेन हि सिध्दयन्ति कार्याणि न मनोरथैः।
न हि सुप्तस्य सिंहस्य प्रविशन्ति मुखे मृगाः॥
(उद्यम से ही कार्य सिध्द होते हैं, मन के घोड़े दौडाने यानी आलस से नहीं। कभी-भी सोये हुए सिंह के मुख में मृग स्वयं प्रवेश नहीं करते।)
If you are doing efforts then what the god is doing??
if god is helping you then why the need of efforts??"
जहाँ तक भगवान के होने या न होने की बात है तो जैसा कि मैंने पहले भी लिखा है इन एक दो श्लोकों के आधार पर हम भगवान के अस्तित्व को सिद्ध या नकार नहीं सकते... ये सब इकट्ठे मिलकर एक तस्वीर बनाते हैं जिससे हम अपनी समझ के अनुरूप निष्कर्ष निकाल सकते हैं.
वो नाविकों वाली कहानी इसी कड़ी में एक कहानी थी. उससे कहीं भगवान का होना या न होना सिद्ध नहीं होता. मगर वो भिन्न परिस्थितियों में हमारी मनोदशा को जाहिर करती है. भगवान में विश्वास करने वाले पूजा करते हैं और बच भी जाते हैं पर वो अपनी आँखों के सामने किये जा रहे प्रयत्नों को नहीं नकार सकते इसलिए वो अपनी पूजा में, विश्वास में कमी को स्वीकार करते हैं.
दूसरी तरफ खुद अपनी मेहनत से जहाज को बचाने वाले भी उस एक शक्ति का अनुभव करते हैं जिस का अस्तित्व वो अभी तक नहीं मानते थे या नहीं जानते थे. वो स्वीकार करते हैं कि उनके efforts के बाबजूद कुछ और शक्ति थी.
अब अकेले इस episode से भगवान के अस्तित्व पर शायद निष्कर्ष न निकाला जा सके... ये तो एक छोटा सा input है उस बड़े concept को समझने के लिए...
8 January 2012
बिलकुल ठीक कहा; धर्म को सबसे ज्यादा नुक्सान धर्मान्धता व कट्टरपन से हुआ है. किसी ने आज इसे कमाई का साधन बना लिया है तो किसी ने status symbol की तरह अपनाया है. अच्छी तरह से समझ कर पालन करने वाले उतना सामने नहीं आते जितना दिखावे वाले.
8 January 2012
In one of the previous comments there is a story about ‘The man who says he hasn't eaten or drunk for 70 years’.
I don’t know specific details of this particular case but one thing is there irrespective of it being true or false, it has no bearings on the theory of existence of god. If it is true still it is not a miracle by god. And if it is false then again it is not related to existence or non-existence of god.
However in his book ‘Autobiography of a Yogi’, Swami Paramahansa Yogananda has mentioned having met a couple of such saints who had not eaten or drunk anything for decades, including a European saint and an Indian saint ‘Giri Bala’ from Bengal. Swamiji has covered this topic in detail and has tried to explain it scientifically.
Swami ji explains that it is all related to conservation of energy. Through practice and self-control one can save daily and routine outflow of energy. Routine physical activities are brought down to barest minimum level.
In his book Swamiji recounts his interaction with the saint.
“The saint resumed the tale, her gentle voice barely audible. "The GHAT was deserted, but my guru cast round us an aura of guarding light, that no stray bathers later disturb us. He initiated me into a KRIA technique which frees the body from dependence on the gross food of mortals. The technique includes the use of a certain MANTRA and a breathing exercise more difficult than the average person could perform. No medicine or magic is involved; nothing beyond the KRIA… I have no bodily excretions. I can control my heart and breathing..."
Further in the book Swamiji has quoted from a lecture by some Dr in Cleveland:
"What we eat is radiation; our food is so much quanta of energy," Dr. George W. Crile of Cleveland told a gathering of medical men on May 17, 1933 in Memphis. "This all-important radiation, which releases electrical currents for the body's electrical circuit, the nervous system, is given to food by the sun's rays. Atoms, Dr. Crile says, are solar systems. Atoms are the vehicles that are filled with solar radiance as so many coiled springs. These countless atomfuls of energy are taken in as food. Once in the human body, these tense vehicles, the atoms, are discharged in the body's protoplasm, the radiance furnishing new chemical energy, new electrical currents. 'Your body is made up of such atoms,' Dr. Crile said. 'They are your muscles, brains, and sensory organs, such as the eyes and ears.'"
“Someday scientists will discover how man can live directly on solar energy. "Chlorophyll is the only substance known in nature that somehow possesses the power to act as a 'sunlight trap,'" William L. Laurence writes in the NEW YORK TIMES. "It 'catches' the energy of sunlight and stores it in the plant. Without this no life could exist. We obtain the energy we need for living from the solar energy stored in the plant-food we eat or in the flesh of the animals that eat the plants. The energy we obtain from coal or oil is solar energy trapped by the chlorophyll in plant life millions of years ago. We live by the sun through the agency of chlorophyll."
This practice of not eating brings in some physiological changes in the body. Talking about his meeting a German saint who ate only one thin coin-sized-wafer a day for decades, Swamiji recounts some physiological details about the saint given by a professor: “Because Therese takes no food, her stomach has shrunk. She has no excretions, but her perspiration glands function; her skin is always soft and firm.”
This book "Autobiography of a Yogi", amongst others, is a great aid for the spiritual journey of a seeker...
9 January 2012
'योगी की आत्मकथा' या उसमें दिए गए किस्से किसी भी तरह हमें ये मानने के लिए मजबूर नहीं करते कि भगवान है. ये उनके अपने जीवन के दृष्टान्त हैं जो उन्होंने हमारे साथ share किये हैं. लेकिन मैंने पाया है कि इस विषय पर और बहुत सी किताबों के साथ इस किताब से भी मुझे बहुत सी बातें समझने में मदद मिली है.
जैसा कि मैंने पहले भी लिखा है गिरी बाला, थेरेस्सा, जानी इत्यादि के वर्णनों से भगवान को सिद्ध किया या नाकारा नहीं जा सकता. ये किस्से अध्यात्म और विज्ञान के समन्वय के अच्छे उदहारण हैं. जो सही लगे वाही हमने मानना है.
और इस मंच पर यही कोशिश हो रही है कि अपनी बात को एक दूसरे पर थोपे बिना हम अपना पहलु रख सकें. पर इसमें हमें पूरी तरह से खुला माहौल रखना है.
हमारे विज्ञान की पहुँच में अध्यात्म अभी तक नहीं आया है क्योंकि उस पर हुई research से 'विज्ञान' अभी उतना ही अनभिज्ञ है जितना वो accounts, political science, या pure arts से है. विज्ञान अभी भी human behaviour की गुत्थियां सुलझाने में लगा है जबकि अध्यात्म ने इसे कई जगह कई तरह से explain कर दिया है. आप की ही तरह मैंने भी गिरी बाला का उदाहरण सिर्फ इसलिए दिया कि इस बात का जिक्र कमेंट्स में आ गया था. तब भी मैंने कहा था कि इस बात का सीधे भगवान के होने या ना होने पर असर नहीं पड़ता.
आज का विज्ञान अभी इस तह तक नहीं पहुंचा है कि वो इन सभी बातों को वैज्ञानिक तरीके से समझ सके या एक्सप्लेन कर सके. ऐसे हालात में इन घटनाओं को जादू या मनघडंत घटनाओं का नाम लेकर नकारने के अलावा 'science' के पास और कोई चारा नहीं बचता. अभी की science पुनर्जन्म को भी नहीं जानती. अंधविश्वास से हमें बचना चाहिए. मगर साथ ही जो कुछ हमें समझ ना आये उस सब को ही अन्धविश्वास मान कर नकारने से भी सावधान रहने की जरूरत है.
हमें दोनों तरफ की बातों को सुनकर ठीक ठीक को रख कर और बाकी बातों को छोड़ कर अपना निष्कर्ष निकालना है. अध्यात्म को सिर्फ इस लिए हम नहीं नकार सकते की वो अभी western science की पहुँच से बाहर है.
9 January 2012
As for the Somnath temple and its destruction despite "Indians believed Firmly in the god Somnath, that the omnipotent will save us ,and the Idol from looted", we need to separate vishwas from andhvishwas. God is in every idol and in every temple and in every person.... but god is not THE idol, the temple is neither god nor gods residence, every person, as he is, is not god. This distinction of being 'in' and being 'the' is very important. Vital force breath is there in every living being but living being itself is not the breath. Wave-currents are there in ocean but ocean itself is not Wave.
Blindly believing that a Temple will save itself and its followers is blindest of blind faiths. Temple is an important instrument at a particular stage of ones spiritual journey but is not the end-all of faith. Giving any more importance to the temple, be it Somnath or any other temple, is not justified.
Idols and temples are symbols and aids only.Faith is important but blind-faith or andhvishwas is very very dangerous.
10 January 2012
Reminds one of a beautiful ghajal sung by Jagjit Singh;
"Mujh ko yakee'n hai sach kehti thi jo bhi Ammi kehti thi.
Jab mere bachpan k din the chand pe pariyan rehti thi....!"
11 January 2012
Let’s discuss the questions raised in certain recent comments.
Q.1Then why be depend on god?
== True spiritualism does not ask us to blindly depend on God. Nor on anything else. Believing in something and being dependent on that thing are slightly different issues.
But it depends on one’s personal advancement. At initial stages of our spiritual awakening we need a number of things like symbols, scriptures, temples to depend on for guidance and assistance. God only helps those who help themselves.
Q.2 If we can help us then why should we remain dependent of faith?
==To help ourselves we need wisdom to discover the right solutions and then strength to implement them. We get both these through faith. Faith in ourselves, faith in our capabilities, faith in our convictions.
Unless one has faith one will not be able to help anyone or achieve anything as he would always be in doubt. So faith is the first requirement for success. Secondly, being dependent on faith alone without any efforts is blind faith and we have to be wary of that.
Q.3 If god helped on believe "bhakti" than why we sacrified some 10,000 of our students teachers, pujari's and bhakts in somnath mandir?
==Merely bhakti never claims to save one of all evils and all dangers. And specific instances never help in proving or dis-proving god unless we know full details of all the characters involved in that episode. We do not know who all got killed, what was their individual spiritual level, what was their moral level, what were their sanskaars, what was the cumulative effect of their earlier karmas, what type of karmas did they perform in this life etc etc…. These are some of the issues which will help in getting an answer to this question.
In general if you ask any question then that can be answered based on the principles and understanding of spiritual teachings.
Q.4 If the karm (work, even loot for his nation, killing of 10000 Indians) is important ,and not the bhakti(Gods prayer,and decision to nonviolence even attacked by invader,even ours 10000, Indians being killed ,,उस समय ईस्वर में दृढ धारणा थी, न्यायशील ईस्वर हत्यारे को स्वयं सजा देगा , हम अपना बचाव करने के लिए भी हिंसा से दूर रहेंगे not to do violence),as gazni destroyed the gods image(no doubtans it was Idol,and the Idol destroying is considers in his and religeonal and religions opinion good)
==Karma and bhakti are two different issues but not necessarily exclusive of each other. Both can co-exist. Righteous karma is always considered better than simple bhakti.
Q.5 And why we considers god superior then work??
==Work and god are incomparable. One cannot compare work with god. However as explained earlier righteous karma is considered better than simple bhakti.
Q.6 Why this god is required, in this physical world?? I am not talking for futures reward of heaven and future punishment of hell's if we are not believer decision.
==This physical world is part of the wholesome world. And god is not required for ‘mere existence’. God is required for better understanding of our existence. Our existence in this world and beyond. God is required to know the truth… for being one with reality… to know ourselves.
Q.7 as you suggested Socrates example, for guru, you mean you will not help in search of god ,we have to find guru in such impatience as if we are dying without guru??
==What or who is Guru? Anyone who teaches something is guru. It could be a teacher, book, friend, just anyone. No we will not die without guru. But if we are treated by a doctor who has never had a guru (teacher, professor) and operates on us with kitchen knife and screw-drivers, we sure will find it difficult to survive. If we need clarity of concepts we have to rely on additional aids like teachers or gurus at one stage or the other in our life.
Q.8 in this coaching life and every knowledge, every useful and real art and science has grown to maximum has established its university. is there any established professor (guru) or university (institute temple) of god seeking (Imaginary and vanishing).
==No. And this is very very unfortunate. In India we have adopted a faulty concept of Secularism. Over last around 1500 years there have been continuous attempts to destroy all our teachings but fortunately sufficient material is still available for the real seekers.
“kuchh baat hai ki hasti mitati nahi hamari
sadiyon raha hai dushman daure jahan hamara…
sare jahan se achha hindostan hamaara…”
Q.8 isn't it downfall of god's science followers of every religion has considers it as a weekend programme.as a formality?? (hindus go temple according to there istadev monday>shiva bhakt,tuesday >hanumanbhakt, wednessday>Ganesh bhakt.Thursday>Narayanbhakt, Friday ,As A Juma ki namaj mohammadans, saturday hanuman and shanimaharaj bhakt,Suday >christians as a sunday prayer.
==That is pseudo spiritualism and we got to be wary of that too. True religion does not ask us to visit temples regularly or periodically. Temples, idols, crosses, bells etc are only aids and are relevant at a particular stage but one has to outgrow these symbols. Problem starts when we get stuck to these aids and refuse to rise above the same.
Swami Vivekanand once said, 'If a child doesn't go to temple, he should be condemned. But if an old man still goes to temple, he must be condemned too'.
We have to evolve and know when to leave the temple.
I have tried to cover all points and share my views on same.
11 January 2012
My inspiration comes from Srimad Bhagwad Geeta only. That's a wonderful work which transcends all religious or time limits. It's teaching is eternal and universal.
11 January 2012
The Lokayat philosophy is a failed philosophy. They criticised each and every school of philosophy. Its basic premise is a doctrine of negation. It negates what it does not see or does not understand. That limits its scope of experimenting and exploration. It regards human happiness as the highest ethical end because it is not aware of the stage of self-actualisation which is something beyond simple happiness and is defined as "the full realization of one's potential". The basic idea of Lokayata philosophy: "this world is the only world, this life is the only life and one should make the best of it" is basically a flawed concept.
A sample of Lokayat or Charvak's Philosophy:
Yada Jeevam, Sukham Jivet,
Rinam kritvam, ghritam pibet.
As long as you live, live happily.
Borrow money and drink Ghee.
It is a sure prescription for disaster....
13 January 2012
The clothes in our childhood have for sure outlived their utility for a youth, but have the milk? Is not the milk still the same, the roti, daal, gaajar ka halwa remain the same. Some things are 'kaal-desh' specific whereas others are eternal.
Similar are our scriptures. There are 'shruties' and there are 'smrities'. Shruties are eternal. The very essence, the all important teachings which are not bound by time. Vedas and Shrimad Bhagwad Geeta are shruties. These are eternal. The basic essence of life transcending all barriers of time, country and religion.
The second set are 'smrities'. These are desh-kaal specific. Relevant for a certain time, under certain circumstances, for certain group of people or country. These are sort of guidelines. These start losing their relevance as the time or the circumstances or the land changes. Manu Smriti is example of such smrities. You move out of that era or that land and most of the guidelines become outdated or irrelevant.
These smrities are like our clothes in the example whereas the shruties, the message of Bhagwad Geeta, like our basic food milk and bread, remain as relevant throughout as they have ever been. Only the doses change with our physical and mental capabilities.
14 January 2012
Just one word about 'Irreligion' campaign. It is again a campaign of negation. It is something like NAM the Non-Aligned Movement. Its members vowed not to take side of Russia or America in the cold-war. But despite their staying away, the Russia and America existed and continued their cold-war for years.
Similarly this irreligion campaign denies everything and stays away from religion, god etc but actually it has no bearings on existence and survival of any religion. It is only that they don't believe in or take side of any religion.
14 January 2012
Unless you come out with your views and specific queries, you might not get the complete picture. As I have said somewhere earlier also, no one can give you a specific answer 'yes' or 'no', you will only get different views and explanations which will help you in reaching at your own considered opinion. So please come out with your queries now.
24 January 2012
Very important issue. We must expose blind-faith and fundamentalist views. All our views, beliefs should be tested in the face of open criticism and critical analysis. Merely by banning or avoiding someone we are not doing anyone any good.
25 January 2012
Someone quoted:
"ALLAH SAY KARAY DOOR TOU TALEEM BHI FITNA"
"IMLAQ BHI AOULAD BHI JAGEER BHI FITNA"
"NA HUQ KAY LIYA UDHAY TOU SHAMSHEER BHI FITNA"
" SHAMSHEER HI KIA NARAEYE TAQBEER BHI FITNA" "
Beautiful quotes from Iqbal.
There are good and bad aspects of everything. Good Taleem (education), bad taleem. Anything taking us away from basics is bad, misguiding.
Andhvishwas, fanaticism, kattarpan etc are actually due to misguidance and misunderstandings about religion. A true follower with proper understanding of the tenets of religion will never be fanatical or fundamentalist.
Fanaticism is not 'because' of religion, rather it is because of 'absence' of true understanding of religion.
8 February 2012
श्रेयान्स्वधर्मों विगुण: परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् ।
स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेय: परधर्मो भयावह ।।
अपना धर्म का पालन करना अति उत्तम है चाहे पालन में कुछ कमी भी रह जाए, बल्कि इसके कि अच्छी प्रकार से आचरण में लाते हुए हम दूसरे के धर्म का पालन करें. अपने धर्म के पालन में तो मरना भी कल्याणकारक है और दूसरे का धर्म का पालन भयावः है.
पर धर्म से मतलब यहाँ अंग्रेजी वाला religion नहीं है बल्कि ये एक wider term है. Righteous duty, अपनी प्रकृति, स्वधर्म, अपनी जिम्मेवारी, अपना फ़र्ज़, prescribed duties complementing one's psycho-physical condition.. वगैरह वगैरह. हमारा स्वधर्म पालन करने में ही कल्याण है, पर धर्म का सेवन और निषिद्ध कर्मों का आचरण करने में सब प्रकार से हानि है.
8 February 2012
कई बार लगता है कि भगवान गलत आदमी का साथ दे रहे हैं और सही आदमी के साथ गलत हो रहा है... और अगर हम इस बात को किसी incident से जोड़कर देखें तो हमें बहुत से उदाहरण भी मिल जाते हैं इस तरह के.
गुत्थी जरा जटिल लगती है मगर 'कर्म' के
सिद्धांत को समझने से यह गुत्थी सुलझने लगती है.
इस थ्योरी के आधार पर किसी के साथ जो कुछ भी आज हो रहा है वह उसके जन्म से लेकर अब तक के व उससे पहले पिछले जन्मों के इकट्ठे कर्मों का परिणाम है. और अगर कंहीं किसी हालात में जबरन कुछ कम या ज्यादा हो गया है तो उसका हिसाब भी आने वाले समय में बराबर हो जाएगा.
इस सबके लिए भगवान को तो मानो या ना मानो, अध्यात्म का अध्ययन महत्वपूर्ण है.
4 March 2012
यह कथन कि "इस तर्क से ब्राह्मणों ने पूरे हिन्दुस्तान को सदियों से गुलाम बना कर रखा है .और आगे भी बनाये रखेंगे", थोडा भ्रम पैदा करता है.
ब्राह्मणों ने यह ज्ञान औरों तक जाने ही नहीं दिया. उन्होंने वेदों को औरों की पहुँच से बाहर करने की सफल कोशिश की और सबको कहा कि 'पुराण' पढ़ो. जब पुराण समझ में आ जाएँ तब वेड पढ़ना. और ये 18 पुराण और 21 उप पुराण क्या हैं? मैं पहले भी कह चूका हूँ कि ये 'स्मृतियों' कि श्रेणी में आते हैं जिनका उपयोग ब्राह्मणों ने लोगों को सही अध्यात्म से दूर रख अपनी हकुमत चलने के लिए किया.
आपके तर्क शुरू बेशक वेद या श्रुतियों को लेकर होते हैं पर जल्दी ही इन स्मृतियों पर केंद्रित हो जाते हैं और असली मुद्दे से भटक जाते हैं. यही तरीका ब्राह्मणों ने अपनाया था. सारी चर्चा सिर्फ पुराणों और स्मृतियों पर हो शुरू उन्ही पर खत्म कर देते थे और जनता को उल्लू बनाते रहते थे.
कृप्या कर इन स्मृतियों के जाल से बाहर आओ फिर देखो अध्यात्म में कितना खजाना छिपा है.
4 March 2012
Someone said:
".अगर अध्यात्म से बाहर आ गए तो शास्त्र निंदक कहलाओगे . ब्रामण निंदक की जीभ काटने और वेद पढ़ने वाले शूद्रों के कानों में शीशा डालने के आदेश मनुस्म्र्ती में लिखे हैं"
पर मैं फिर अपनी वही request दोहरा रहा हूँ कि ब्राह्मणवाद से पुराणों से बाहर निकलो तभी कुछ बात बनेगी. पुराणों से आपका नाता जब तक टूटेगा नहीं असली बात को आप पहचान नहीं पायेंगे. मनुस्मृति और यहाँ तक बुद्धिस्म ने असली दर्शन का बहुत नुक्सान किया है.
4 March 2012
धर्म के बिना social जीवन संभव ही नहीं है. धर्म ही हर किसी को उसकी जिम्मेवारियों, कार्यपद्धतियों आदि की जानकारी देता है. बिना धर्म के तो फिर जंगल राज होता है. हाँ धर्म कंही पर शास्त्र नियत करते हैं, कंही प्रचलित पद्धतियाँ और कंही कानून कि किताबें.
4 March 2012
बुद्धिस्म ने आकाश से टपका कर खजूर पर लटका दिया था.
और ब्राह्मणवाद से दूर हटने के लिए ही तो ये सारा प्रयास है. उनसे दूर अगर हटना चाहते हैं तो पुराणों और स्मृतियों का साथ छोडना होगा.
4 March 2012
हमें इन 'वादों' से हट कर मूल पर जाना है. वहीँ सब कुछ है.
4 March 2012
