Is there God? Before we answer this question, I think we have to ask: Who is asking the question? You would say, I, I so and so, am asking this question. You will probably also ask, am I meant to ask this question before asking any question at all? I would say, yes. The basic question to ask is: Who or what or why is the questioner. Before the question, seek the questioner. Because when you get to know the questioner, you might no longer have any questions.
There are questions and questions. There is no end to questions. Why are we questioning at all? Is it to get answers to help us along the way? If it is help that we want, why don’t we get such a help that we would never again need any help? Isn’t that what we want? Never to have any problems, to ever live a blissful life? Of course, there is the person who gets his very thrill in living by confronting problems. For the time being we shall leave such a person alone. We shall just say that he is so conditioned that he has become addicted to his conditioning.
So the basic question is, can we have an answer after which we would no longer have any questions? Dead people have no questions, but we are here not talking about dead people. We are talking about being most alive.
I say that the basic question we ought to pose ourselves is, who or what am I? Posing the question is easy enough. But what answers can we expect? Are we, ordinary folks, competent enough to expect the correct answer? Even if we are smug about our capability, how would we know that our answer is correct? Not just for ourselves, but universally. An answer is no answer unless it is an universal answer, universal in principle at least.
There is in human tradition something called ‘authority’. Traditionally ‘authorities’ (in the realm of knowledge) have been the scriptures, acknowledged masters and science. It is they who can give any semblance of finality of acceptance to the great answers of mankind. But in the matter of knowing one’s own self, is an external authority required?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Is there God?
Some queries answered
1. Even if for argument sake I accept that the BJP is exploiting the Hindus for the sake of votes, I ask you - is there any other political formation that speaks for the Hindus? So my position is I would rather be ruled by an imperfect party supporting the Hindus rather than a perfect anti-Hindu party.
2. You talk about Ram being better-off before he was monopolized by Hindutva Jehadis. But you forget that the Hindus became weak a thousand years ago when the Muslims and then the British colonized India. The Hindus began regaining strength again only through movements of Sanyasis from the 19th century onwards, culminating in our independence and the betrayal of the Muslims in the formation of Pakistan. What we see now is a reassertion of the Hindus and Ram has become a symbol of this reassertion. It is only the anti-Hindus who insult Ram. Hindus are ready to protect Rama’s legacy.
3. Though many places in Ayodhya is claimed to be the birth place of Rama, consequent to the Ramjanmabhoomi movement, the Hindus have absolutely no doubt where exactly Rama’s birth place is.
4. Your perverted mind is displayed when you associate Ram with Jehadi and again with Sonia Gandhi. Jehadi and Sonia Gandhi are foreign, but not Ram, notwithstanding his claimed birth/death place in Ukraine. This is the same situation as the many so-called birth places in Ayodhya itself.
5. You talk of a Ram who cut off a Shudra’s head. What about a Ram who cut off a Brahmin’s head (Ravana’s)? And if you say Ram had reason to cut-off Ravana’s head because Ravana had kidnapped his wife, then he might also have had reason in the Shudra’s case because the Shudra wanted no less than to conquer ‘Devlok’. Rama may have seen the Raksha in such a person who was nurturing a wish to kill celestial beings.
6. About Ram being unable to protect his queen, it only shows the mighty evil that Ravana was, who dared to kidnap even a King’s wife. If Rama had not taken avatar, Hinduism may have disappeared then itself. If Rama exiled his queen, he was only showing how a King had to clear the erroneous notions of his subjects even at the cost of paying a personal price for it.
7. When you ask which Ram is the God of Hindus, be assured that it is the Ram, one and only Ram, who has an eternal place in the hearts of the Hindus, who is a God of the Hindus.
8. About Ram being an Imam e Hind, it is the opinion of a Muslim poet. At least to that extent the Muslim poet has acknowledged Ram existed.
9. Anyone, including Karunanidhi, has the right to ask who Ram is. No doubt they will be educated on the subject in due course of time.
10. About imposing Ram on all Indians, that is the Semitic creed, to impose their only true God on all mankind. Hindus do not impose any God and hence we live and let live with all the 33 crores gods we have.
Concrete and not-so-concrete idols
Muslims insist they are not idol worshippers. However, unless the mind has a focal point, it would not be able to conceive anything. God, accepted by Islam and all religions as being, per se, beyond the conception of man, has to be brought down to the level of a concept if He is to be worshipped. That “bringing down to the level of a concept” inevitably results in idolatry. In Hinduism, idolatry is obvious because idol worship is celebrated. In Islam idolatry is not obvious because their definition of idols is restricted to that which is made of concrete material. However, even the word “Allah” is an idol because “Allah” is a word and words, though not concrete things, represent that which is concrete. And all representations are idols.
Complexity no argument for a creator
Oft it is said that the universe is so complex that it must necessarily have a creator to handle its complexity. However, the very complexity of the universe indicates that there cannot be a “creator” separate from the universe. (Why should we have a double set of complexities – the complexity of the creator and the complexity of the created?) It can only be a case of self-regulation by the universe itself. In other words, our answers to the mystery of the universe has to be found by studying the universe itself, either in totality or in its particulars. Studying the totality is the approach the scientific culture nurtures and studying the particular it what the spiritual culture nurtures. This external and internal discoveries are the legacy of science and religion. Positing a creator only leads to faith and faith, though a solace to the mind of man, will not enlighten us to the truths of our circumstances.
Overlap at peril
If the ‘believe’ we are talking about here is about opinions or faith, we are certainly entitled to believe the way we want to, provided we don’t foist such beliefs upon others without giving them a fair chance to accept it or reject it. But if we are talking about the rules and regulations of the work-a-day world, whether it is of court judgements, instruction manuals, traffic rules, fixing a motorcycle, writing scientific journals or ordinary correspondence - we need to be precise, there must be common meeting grounds. Both the worlds of belief and science are valid - but they overlap at peril.
Jesus' sacrifice
It is the central tenet of Christianity that God sent his only begotten son amongst mankind as a ransom for man’s sins. This should have meant that sin in mankind, which entered mankind through the original sin of Adam in disobeying God (and eating the forbidden fruit), the wages for which was death, would have been cleansed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This should have resulted in everlasting life for mankind since then. However, it appears to me that the ransom of Christ was hijacked by the Church which said that mankind would be assured of everlasting life only if it believes in Jesus Christ. Has Christ’s sacrifice been in vain?
My basic question is whether believe is sine-qua-non for connecting to Christ?
As far as Christianity is concerned, it is a truism that “Jesus died on the cross for our sins”. But the Church and Missionaries still say all of us are sinners. So what was Jesus’ sacrifice all about? For the Church and Missionaries it is about believing Jesus, as if his teachings weren’t good enough to transform us. Further, the Church thinks we have to couple believe with becoming members of the one true church. The missionaries think we have to denounce all religions except Christianity (the pernicious conversion enterprise!). I think Jesus himself meant it is about awakening to the divinity within and without us – as so many of the best teachers of mankind taught. The only “sacrifice” Jesus made and all of us need to make for everlasting life is to reject the hold of the material upon us. Jesus was an example. You don’t need to believe in examples. You have only to understand it.
