Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
| Posted: 12 Oct 2012 04:34 PM PDT So we are not really free then. Our soul wants to be good. In fact, we were once good. But then our soul entered our body and that was when we became bad. So birth is actually a curse rather than a blessing. If we had died one minute after we emerged from our mother's womb we would have been spared the misery of life. But because we lived we now have to suffer life. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Maybe just for today we can lay off talking about politics and instead look at what Ashok Vohra wrote below. Ashok teaches philosophy at Delhi University and the article below was published in The Times of India. One interesting part of this article was this part: Swami Sivananda accepts that Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man. However, His existence can be inferred by certain empirical facts or common experiences in daily life. Swami Sivananda questions an atheist who wants conclusive proof for the existence of Brahmn: 'Can you give proof for the non-existence of Brahmn?' He asserts that no one has succeeded in proving that Brahmn does not exist. If you were to study philosophy of religion, this would be the key question that you pose. Do you prove the existence of God by scientific evidence or do you 'prove' it by the fact that it cannot be proven that God does not exist. In other words, because you cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore God has to exist. God is supposed to be the God of this universe, not just the God of this planet. But does more than one universe exist? Humankind does not yet have the ability to explore the reaches beyond this universe to prove or disprove that another universe (or many more universes) exists beyond our universe. Hence, in the event that another universe (or many more universes) exists beyond our universe, does this mean that another God exists for that other universe as well? Now, since we cannot prove that another universe does not exist and hence there is another God for that universe, does this mean it and He does exist since it cannot be proven otherwise? This is based on the argument that it/He exists because it cannot be proven it/He does not. Nevertheless, as Swami Sivananda said: Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man. And that is the key to the whole thing: it is a question of faith and subject to our intuition or 'gut feeling' that a divine power that created us does exist. God exists because we exist and if God did not exist then we would not exist as well. Something had to have created us and this something has to be some form of higher power called God. In conclusion, we can prove that God exists by our own existence. We are the proof that God exists. Okay, that is one issue. Now let's move on to the next issue. And this next issue is how we perceive things and how our perception of things dictates our beliefs. However, could we be seeing things opposite to what they are? What our eye sees is what our brain tells us we see. In other words, we do not actually see things with our eyes but we see things with our brain. For example, when you look at your reflection in a mirror what do you see? Your eyes see left as right and right as left. Your left ear is actually reflected on the right in that mirror. But your brain tells you that you see your left ear as being on the left rather than on the right. Say I stand beside the mirror and face you. You will see my right ear as being on the right. Now compare that to what you see in the mirror beside me. Would not your reflection be 'parallel' to me? But then your right ear in the mirror is actually your left ear. Hence, your reflection in the mirror, if seen in isolation, will appear as how your brain wants you to see it. But when I stand beside the mirror and face you, your reflection 'looking' at you is opposite to my 'reflection' looking at you. But you do not see it this way because your brain does not tell you to see it this way. Hence my right ear appears right while your 'right ear' in the mirror appears left. I know this concept is very hard to comprehend because all your life you have always been looking at your reflection in the mirror and it has always looked the way your brain wanted you to see it. It never occurred to you that what you are looking at is the opposite reflection but your brain 'turned it around'. And that demonstrates the power of your brain and how your brain can make you see what you think you see even if it is actually an opposite reflection. Hence faith works on the basis of not what you see but what you do not see and how your brain tells you that since you do not see it then it has to exist. And this is how we convince ourselves that God does exist -- the absence of proof is evidence that God does exist. I am not going to stray into the argument that the evidence of the existence of God lies in the existence of the Holy Books. That would be the traditional argument by religionists and is an old argument. Basically it will be a debate of no winners. What I want to discuss instead is the concept of our existence and which eventually will result in our non-existence, meaning we eventually die. We are taught that at first we did not physically exist. Then we are born, so we physically exist. Then we die and we physically no longer exist. That is what we are taught and our brain accepts that concept of birth and death. But that is what our brain tells us and we believe what our brain tells us. But could it actually be the opposite of what we see? Could our brain actually be tricking us just like how it tricked us regarding our reflection in the mirror? In other words, could we actually be living before we were born and died when we got born and then will live again when we die? What is the concept of most religions? Most religions tell us that our body is merely a shell for our soul to occupy. So 'we' are not really that body that we occupy. 'We' is the soul that occupies our body. The body is temporary. The soul is eternal. The soul existed before our body was formed. And the soul will continue to exist after it leaves our body. Hence our body is not what we are. 'We' are our soul. In that case, we need to redefine what 'we' are. 'We' are not what we see in that mirror. 'We' are what we cannot see in that mirror. What we see in that mirror is the external shell that our soul occupies. But that is not who we are. 'We' lurk within that body and it cannot be seen in that mirror. If we do not possess a soul then our existence would start the day we were born and will end the day we die. In that case we need not be accountable for what we do. We need not be good, compassionate, kind, honest, merciful, etc. We can do what we want because once we die that is the end of everything. But that is not what religion tells us. Religion tells us the opposite of that. Hence our soul will pay for what we do. So it is not the body but the soul that has to beware because it will be the soul and not the body that has to account for our deeds. In that case, is humankind really free? We talk about freedom. But then we are not free. We are guided by certain rules, regulations and codes of conduct. But it is not easy to follow these rules, regulations and codes of conduct because we are controlled by emotions, sentiments, lust, greed, ego, anger, jealousy, envy, etc. On the one hand there are so many dos and donts. On the other hand there are so many influences that oppose these dos and donts. Hence most of us fail. And religion tells us we shall pay for this later. So we are not really free then. Our soul wants to be good. In fact, we were once good. But then our soul entered our body and that was when we became bad. So birth is actually a curse rather than a blessing. If we had died one minute after we emerged from our mother's womb we would have been spared the misery of life. But because we lived we now have to suffer life. Hence is death or non-birth a better option? Death or non-birth would have spared us a lot of suffering, both in this world as well as the next life after death. We are cursed by having been born whereas those that did not live do not suffer like we do. But we see life as good and non-life or death as bad. Nobody wants to die. Everyone wants to live. We will fight tooth and nail to stay alive. Why do we not see life as a curse and death as a blessing? No life means no sin and no sin means no hell. Is that not better? Our brain, however, will disagree with that. Our brain tells us that life is good and non-life or death is bad. Is our brain tricking us? Is our brain making us see the opposite of what is just like how it makes us see the opposite when we look at our reflection in the mirror? Religion is basically about being good and avoiding bad. Over thousands of years, however, religion has been modified with dogma and rituals. And because of that the very essence of religion has been lost and buried amongst all those 'teachings'. Do we know why we exist? Do we know whether we existed before we existed (meaning being born)? And do we know whether we shall exist after we exist (meaning we die)? And if we know all this then will we come to a conclusion that life is a curse whereas non-life is a blessing? We used to be free. One day we shall again be free. But in the meantime while we have life in our body we are not free but am serving a period of imprisonment. Hence freedom is imprisonment while imprisonment is freedom -- yes, the opposite of what our brain tells us. Our soul is trapped because we are alive. Our soul would be free had we not been born. Hence how can we say that life is good and death is bad when the opposite is actually true? So there you are, no politics today. And ponder on that one over the weekend and see whether you can defy your brain and see life and death as what it is and not as what your brain tells you it is. Have a good weekend everyone. ******************************************* Proof That God Does Exist Ashok Vohra, The Times Of India Vedanta says that Brahmn is ultimate reality. All other beings and things are unreal. But when we ask questions about the nature of Brahmn, the Upanishads describe it as neti, neti – not this, not this. Therefore, they describe the ultimate reality, Brahmn, in negative terms alone. Swami Sivananda is not satisfied with the negative description of Brahmn because it is impossible for the mind to conceive of an absolute nothing. He argues that 'Brahmn is not void. It is not blankness or emptiness'. It is not shunyata. Brahmn, he upholds, is paripoorna, full, because all desires melt there. Brahmn to him 'is something, after seeing which there is nothing more to be seen, after becoming which there is nothing more to become, after knowing which there remains nothing to be known'. Brahmn is that which is all-pervading, which surrounds us from all sides - around, above, and below. It is satchidananda or existence, knowledge and bliss. It is that which has no other. It is without a second, endless, eternal, one and one alone. It is everlasting, the one continuous experience-whole. Hence Swami Sivananda has described Brahmn in term of positive attributes. He upholds that Brahmn has six attributes: 'jnana, divine wisdom; vairagya, dispassion; aishwarya, power; bala, strength; sri, wealth and kirti, fame'. He is nitya, eternal; ananta, infinite and ananda, supreme bliss. He is unchanging amidst changing phenomena. He is permanent amidst the impermanent, and imperishable amidst the perishable. He is what the Gita calls "Jyotishamapi tat jyoti, Light of all lights". He is the Adhisthana or support of the phenomenal world. Brahmn is the sutradhara, string-puller of all bodies of beings. He is the antaryamin, inner ruler of all beings. He is in you and you are in Him. Each of the five primary elements is a manifestation of His qualities. Brahmn is swatantra or independent. He has satkama, good desires and satsankalpa, pure will. Since karmas are jada or insentient, on their own they cannot yield fruits, so it is Brahmn who dispenses fruits of actions of jivas. He is all-merciful; quenching the thirst of jivas. He satiates our hunger. He dispenses justice to all. The five activities of God are: Srishti, Creation; sthiti, preservation; samhara, destruction; tirodhana or tirobhava, veiling; and anugraha, grace. Swami Sivananda accepts that Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man. However, His existence can be inferred by certain empirical facts or common experiences in daily life. One can also prove the existence of Brahmn conceptually. One cannot think of impurity, duality, disagreement, variety and mortality without thinking of purity, oneness, agreement, unity and immortality. The possibility of the relative implies reality of the Absolute. Finally, Swami Sivananda questions an atheist who wants conclusive proof for the existence of Brahmn: 'Can you give proof for the non-existence of Brahmn?' He asserts that no one has succeeded in proving that Brahmn does not exist. 'Whether the owl accepts the presence of light or not, there is always light'. Likewise, whether you accept the existence of Brahmn or not, He always exists. Even the one who claims the non-existence of Brahmn is himself Brahmn. Likewise, the one who claims that there is only shunya, void, forgets that that the knower who knows the shunya is himself Brahmn. The author teaches philosophy at Delhi University |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan