The Gods do not treat everyone alike. The attitude that all souls are equal and subject to equal standards of right and wrong behavior is not an Eastern understanding. Nor is it the way the Gods view the souls of men. There are younger souls and older souls, just as there are children and adults. They live worlds apart in the same world. Souls living side by side may actually be hundreds of lives apart in their spiritual maturation, one just learning what the other learned many lives ago. The Gods discern the depth of the soul, and when they are approached they see the devotee not only as he is but as he was and will be. They help the devotee in understanding within the sphere of intelligence which they command. Often one God will primarily direct one specialized mind stratum. He will come to know the problems and nuances indigenous to that mind region. Thus, the same misdeed performed by three souls of different ages under similar circumstances is viewed as three different misdeeds by the Gods. An older soul is more aware, more able to control himself and therefore more responsible for his actions. He should have known better and finds that his transgression brings painful retribution. Another less mature soul is still learning control of the emotions that provoked his misdeed, and he is sharply scolded. Still another soul, so young that awareness has not yet fathomed the laws of karma, of action and reaction, and who remains unawakened to the emotional mastery the situation demanded, is lightly reprimanded, if at all. The Gods in their superconscious judgment of human deeds and misdeeds are infinitely fair and discerning. Their judgments are totally unlike the notion of a God in heaven who arbitrarily saves or condemns. In Hinduism all men are destined to attain liberation. Not a single soul will suffer for eternity. Therefore, the Gods in their deliberations are not making what we would consider personal judgments. Their decrees are merely carrying out the natural law of evolution. They are always directing the soul toward the Absolute, and even their apparent punishments are not punishments but correction and discipline that will bring the soul closer to its true nature. Now, of course human law is not like this, especially today, but in civilizations past and in the great religious Hindu empires of India, there were such equitable courts of law, with enlightened men of justice, that sentences and punishments were meted out upon careful scrutiny of the individual, his particular dharma and the duties and expectations it bound him to uphold. It is through the sanction of the Gods that the Hindu undertakes the practice of yoga--that orthodox and strictly Hindu science of meditation that leads to merger of the many with the one. Yoga is the culmination of years of religious and devotional service and can only be successful with the support of the Gods who are the sentries guarding the gates of the various strata of consciousness. This sanction, once obtained, can and does allow the kundalini force within the core of the spine to safely rise and merge with the Supreme that all Hindus know is the Absolute--timeless, causeless and spaceless. But first much work has to be done.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
ICON WORSHIP - HINDUS DO NOT WORSHIP IDOLS OR GRAVEN IMAGES
The Meaning Of Icon Worship Hindu temples are new to the West and the knowledge of the very special and entirely esoteric nature of the Hindu temple is unknown in the West. One of the first misunderstandings that arises in the West is the purpose and function of the "graven image." The Judaic-Christian tradition firmly admonishes against the worship of graven images--though, of course, in Catholicism saints and images, and in Eastern Orthodoxy their pictures, are reverently worshiped. The Hindu doesn't worship idols or graven images. He worships God and the great godlike Mahadevas. The image is only that, an icon or representation or channel of an inner-plane Deity that hovers above or dwells within the statue. The physical image is not required for this process to happen. The God would perform His work in the temple without such an image, and indeed there are Hindu temples which have in the sanctum sanctorum no image at all but a yantra, a symbolic or mystic diagram. There are other Hindu temples which have only a small stone or crystal, a mark to represent the God worshiped there. However, the sight of the image enhances the devotee's worship, allowing the mind to focus on the sacred bonds between the three worlds, allowing the nerve system to open itself to the darshan. Sight is very powerful. Sight is the first connection made with the Deity. The sight of the icon in the sanctum stimulates and enhances the flow of uplifting energies, or pranas, within the mind and body. Each Deity performs certain functions, is in charge, so to speak, of certain realms of the inner and outer mind. Knowing which Deity is being worshiped, by seeing the image of the Deity there, unfolds in the mind's eye a like image and prepares the way for a deeper devotion. In a Hindu temple there is often a multiplicity of simultaneous proceedings and ceremonies. In one corner an extended family, or clan, with its hundreds of tightly knit members, may be joyously celebrating a wedding. At another shrine a lady might be crying in front of the Deity, saddened by some misfortune and in need of solace. Elsewhere in the crowded precincts a baby is being blessed, and several groups of temple musicians are filling the chamber with the shrill sounds of the nagasvaram and drum. After the puja reaches its zenith, brahmin priests move in and out of the sanctum, passing camphor and sacred ash and holy water to hundreds of worshipers crowding eagerly to get a glimpse of the Deity. All of this is happening at once, unplanned and yet totally organized. It is a wonderful experience, and such a diverse array of devotional ceremonies and such an intensity of worship can only be seen in a Hindu temple. There is no place on Earth quite like a Hindu temple. Esoterically, the Gods in the temple, who live in the microcosm, can work extraordinarily fast with everyone. There is so much going on that everyone has the sense of being alone. The weeping woman is allowed her moment of mourning. No one feels that she is upsetting the nearby wedding. No one even notices her. The temple is so active, so filled with people, that each one is left to worship as he needs that day--to cry or to laugh or to sing or to sit in silent contemplation in a far-off corner.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
BUDDHISM AND QUANTUM PHYSICS
A STRANGE PARALLELISM OF THE TWO CONCEPTS OF REALITY
There apparently is a common ground between buddhist philosophy and quantum physics. There is a surprising parallelism between the philosophical concept of reality articulated by Nagarjuna and the physical concept of reality implied by quantum physics. For neither is there a fundamental core to reality, rather reality consists of systems of interacting objects. Such concepts of reality cannot be reconciled with the substantial, subjective, holistic or instrumentalistic concepts of reality which underlie modern modes of thought. 1. Nagarjuna's concept of reality. Nagarjuna was the most significant Buddhist philosopher of India. According to Etienne Lamotte he lived in the second part of the third century after Christ . His philosophy is of great topical interest. Right to this day it determines the thinking of all the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. We have no assured biographical knowledge about him, other than various legends which I will not enter into here. The authenticity of thirteen of his works is more or less regarded as etablished by the scholastic research. The Danish scholar Ch. Lindtner was particularly concerned with the examination and translation of these thirteen works . Nagarjuna's main work, Mulamadhyamaka-karika [MMK], is translated into German, English, French and other European languages . Nagarjuna is the founder of the philosophical school called Madhyamaka or Middle Way. The Middle Way indicates a spiritual and philosophical path that aspires to avoid extreme metaphysical concepts, particularly the concepts of substantial and subjective thinking in their various forms. In his main work [MMK] the Middle Way is described as follows: « What arises dependently [pratityasamutpada] is pronounced to be substancelessness [sunyata]. This is nothing but a dependent concept [prajnapti]. Substancelessness [sunyata] constitutes the middle way ». Nagarjuna's philosophy consists principally of two aspects. The first aspect is an exposition of a concept of reality [sunyata, pratityasamutpada], according to which fundamental reality has no firm core and does not consist of independent, substantial components but of two-body-systems. Of material or immaterial bodies which reciprocally affect each other. This concept of reality is diametrically opposed to one of the key concepts of traditional Indian metaphysics: 'svabhava' or 'own being'. The second aspect is an answer to the inner contradictions of four extreme concepts of reality which are not exhaustively presented but only indicated in principle. Nevertheless it is easy to recognize the systems of thought to which these indications relate. This is important as it is from this recognition that we can identify those aspects of our extreme metaphysical positions that make it impossible for us to recognize the nature of reality. This is not only a debate within the traditional metaphysics of India. We can relate these four extreme propositions to the substantial, subjective, holistic and instrumentalist modes of thought found in the modern world. In order to effectively undermine these modes of thought one first has to recognize them as such. Therefore without any claim to completeness we can go to a brief outline of these four modes of thought: (1.) Substantialism. Substance is something that has independent existence [Webster's New World Dictionary, New York 1968]. In Europe, substantialism is at the centre of traditional metaphysics, beginning with pre-Socratic philosophers [like Parmenides and Heraclitus, two critics of substantial thought] through Plato, up to Immanuel Kant. According to traditional metaphysics, substance or own being is something that has independent existence, something unchangeable, eternal and existing by itself. Substance is the underlying basis for everything else, the non-material foundation of the world in which we live. Plato made a distinction between two forms of being. Particularly in the second part of his 'Parmenides' he distinguished between on the one hand singular objects, which exist exclusively through participation and insofar as this is the case they have no own being and on the other hand ideas that do have an own being. Traditional metaphysics adopted this dualism from Plato. An independent own being is characzerised in traditional metaphysics as something that, as an existing thing, is not dependent on anything else [Descartes], existing by itself, subsisting through itself [More], which is completely unlimited by others and free from any kind of foreign command [Spinoza], and exists of itself without anything else [Schelling]. In traditional metaphysics the highest substance was often understood as God or as a divine being. Since Kant's so called 'Copernican revolution' the primary question of philosophy is no longer to know reality, but rather to know mind or the source of perception and knowledge. For this reason the traditional metaphysics has lost ground in the modern world. In fact the central concepts of the traditional metaphysics such as being, substance, reality, essence, etc had been replaced by the reductionist modes of thought of modern sciences. Now atoms, elementary particles, energy, fields of force, laws of nature etc are seen as the fundamental ground for everything else. (2.) Subjectivism. By subjectivist modes of thought we look towards the turning of attention to the subject that resulted from the changes created by René Descartes. According to this doctrine, consciousness is that which is primarily existent and everything else is merely content or a form or a creation of that consciousness. The high point of this kind of subjectivism is represented by the idealism of Berkeley. The ideas of Kant can be considered as a moderated subjectivism or idealism. Since René Descartes, subjectivity or self-awareness has become the fulcrum for modern philosophical thought lending evidential proof and certainty of reality. This view has been continually brought into doubt by the modern physical sciences, however these doubts have not lead to a new and complementary concept of reality but to a calamitous separation between philosophy and the modern physical sciences. It has served only to sharpen that dualism that preoccupies modern thought. According to the physicist P.C.W.Davies electrons, photons or atoms do not exist, they are nothing but models of thought. See: P.C.W. Davies, The Ghost in the Atom, Cambridge 1986 (3.) Holism. The view that an organic or integrated whole has a reality independent of and greater than the sum of its parts [Webster's Dictionary, New York 1968]. This third approach tries to avoid the calamitous either-or-scheme of the first two approaches by fusing subject and object into one whole, such that there are no longer any parts but only one identity: all is one. That whole is made absolute and is mystified. It becomes an independent unity that exists without dependence on its parts. Wholeness is understood as something concrete, as if it were an object of experience. As a philosophical approach found in great periods of European history of philosophy, this view is connected with names like Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Schelling. In quantum physics holism is represented by David Bohm . (4.) Instrumentalism. The fourth approach consists in refuting or ignoring the existence of subject and object. Instead of favouring einther one or the other or the two together, this metaphysical approach refutes them both. The search for reality is according to this viewpoint insignificant or meaningless. Instrumentalism is very modern, intelligent [for example in the person of Ernst Cassirer], and sometimes somewhat captious. It is difficult to disengage from it. As an extension of subjectivism it consists of regarding thinking as thinking in models, which is regarded as a working with information without concern as to what phenomena the information is about. It inherits this problem from subjectivism, about which the philosopher Donald Davidson wrote: « Once one makes the decision for the Cartesian approach, it seems that one is unable to indicate what ones proofs are evidence for ». Instrumentalism is a collective term that denotes a variety of scientific approaches. They have the common feature of considering the totality of human knowledge, including scientific constructs, statements and theories, as not at all or sometimes merely not primarily, realistic reproductions of the structure of reality. Rather it considers them to be the result of human's interactions with nature for the purpose of establishing theoretically and practically successful models. For instrumentalism theories are not a description of the world but are an instrument for a systematic classification and explanation of observations and for the predictions of facts. The instrumentalist approach is outlined by the experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger. Zeilinger stated in an interview: « In classical physics we speak of a world of things that exists somewhere outside and we describe their nature. In quantum physics we have learned that we have to be very careful about this. Ultimately physical sciences are not sciences of nature but sciences of statements about nature. Nature in itself is always a construction of mind. Niels Bohr once put it like this: There is no world of quantum, there is only a quantum mechanical description ». Nagarjuna presents these four extreme concepts of reality in a scheme that is called in Sanskrit: catuskoti and in Greek: tetralemma. In a short form they can be expressed as follows: Things do not arise substantially: 1. either out of themselves, 2. nor out of something else, 3. nor out of both, 4. nor without a cause. Behind this scheme there are, as metioned before, four concepts of reality that can be related to substantial, subjective, holistic and instrumentalist modes of thought in the modern world. It would be difficult to find a modern person who does not, in his own way, hold one of these four extreme views. This shows that Nagarjuna's philosophy is very up-to-date. Nagarjuna did not refute 1. the substantial modes of thought in oder to end up in 2. subjectivism, even though this is often claimed against him. Nor did he refute the either or mode of thought in order to end with a view of 3. holism, identity, or wholeness, which some benevolent interpreters say of him. Nor did he refute holism in order to end up at 4. instrumentalism, as is believed by many modern interpreters in imitation of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Nagarjuna does not fall into any of these extremes because these are the exact four extreme metaphysical concepts that he systematically refutes. Already in the very first verse of the MMK, he points out not only the dilemma but the whole tetralemma of our thinking. That verse states: « Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause does anything whatever anywhere arises ». This verse can be understood as the principal statement of the Mulamadhyamaka-karika [MMK]: The refutation of the four extreme metaphysical views, that cannot be reconciled with the dependent arising of things. If this is the case, the remainder of the MMK would be merely a clarification of this first verse. Therefore this requires careful examination. What is the assertion made by this verse? That nothing can be found, that there is nothing, that nothing exists? Was Nagarjuna denying the external world? Did he wish to refute that which evidently is? Did he want to call into question the world in which we live? Did he wish to deny the presence everyehere of things that somehow arise? If by 'arise' we understand the notion of the empirical arising of things then we are obliged to argue that if a thing does not arise out of itself, it must arise out of something else. So we should ask: what is the significance of the concept 'to arise'?
In another text, Nagarjuna himself gives some indication of how to understand this concept. He writes in his work Yuktisastika « That which has arisen dependently on this and that that has not arisen substantially [svabhavatah]. What has not arisen substantially, how can it literally [nama] be called 'arisen'? ». « That which originates due to a cause and does not abide without [certain] conditions but disappears when the conditions are absent, how can it be understood as 'to exist' »? By the concepts of 'arising' and 'exist' Nagarjuna does not mean the empirical but the substantial arising or existence. When in many other passages of Mulamadhyamaka-karika Nagarjuna states that things do not arise , that they do not exist , that they are not to be found , that they are not , that they are unreal , then clearly this has the meaning : Things do not arise substantially, they do not exist out of themselves, their independence cannot be found, they are dependent and in this sense they are substantially unreal. Nagarjuna only refutes the idea of a substantial arising of things, of an absolute and independent existence. He does not refute the empirical existence of things. This is what he is explaining when he states: « 'It exists' implies grasping after eternity. 'It does not exist' implies the philosophy of annihilation. Therefore, a discerning person should not decide on either existence or non-existence ». For Nagarjuna the expression 'to exist' has the meaning 'to exist substantially'. His issue is not the empirical existence of things [dharma] but the idea of a permanent thing and of things having a substance. Only the idea of an own being, without dependence to something else, is refuted by Nagarjuna. Things do not arise out of themselves, the do not exist absolutely, their permanent being is not to be found, they are not independent but they are dependently arising.
The many interpretations of Nagarjuna that claim that he is also refuting the empirical existence of objects, are making an inadmissible generalization that suggests Nagarjuna approaches subjectivism or instrumentalism. Such interpretations originate in metaphysical approaches that themselves have a difficulty in recognizing the empirical existence of the presenting data, which is not at all the case with Nagarjuna.
How does Nagarjuna present the dependence of phenomena? The starting point of the MMK is the double nature of phenomena. These fundamental two-body-systems cannot be further analytically divided. The two bodies constitute a system of two material or immaterial components that complement each other. One of the components cannot exist without the other one; each forms the counterpart of the other. In the MMK Nagarjuna concerns himself with such concrete two-body-systems as: a thing & its conditions, a walking person & the way to be walked, seer & seen, cause & effect, an entity & its characteristics, a passion & a passionate person, arising & conditions of arising, agent & action, fire & fuel. Some examples of this dependence of the two parts are duscussed below.
In this way we are led into the centre of Nagarjuna's philosophy. In the first ten, and some subsequent chapters of MMK Nagarjuna emphasises one central idea: material or immaterial bodies of two-body-systems are not identical nor can they be separated. The most important characteristic of phenomena is their interdependence and the resultant: substancelessness: the impossibility of existing individually or independently. This is the meaning of sunyata: phenomena are without own being and without independence. Reality does not consist of single, isolated material or immaterial components; phenomena arise only in dependence on other phenomena. They do not arise substantially because dependent phenomena can have no independent existence.
A thing is not independent of its conditions, nor is it identical with them. Walking does not exist without the way to be walked. The walking person and the way are not one. A Seer is not the same as the seen object, but a seer without an object does not exist. There can be no cause without an effect, or an effect without a cause. The concept 'cause' has no meaning without the concept 'effect'. Cause and effect are not one, but they cannot be separated into two independent concepts. Without a characteristic we cannot speak of a characterised, or of a characterised without a characteristic. How could there be a passionate person without passion? When there are no conditions of arising there is no arising, neither exists standing alone. Without action there can be no agent, without fire there can be nothing designated as fuel.
The material or immaterial components of a two-body-system do not exist in isolation, they are not one and yet they are not independent of each other: and because of this they are not 'real'. For two complementary phenomena or for double concepts the nature and the existence of each is dependent of the other. The one arises with the other and disappears with the other. This is why a thing arises substantially, neither out of itself, nor out of anotherone, nor out of both, nor without a cause. There is no fundamental core to reality; rather reality consists of systems of interacting bodies.
This concept of reality is initially merely an idea; a pointer to the reality which cannot be described in words. One who can speak about concept-free reality has not experienced it. For the Buddhist tradition based on Nagarjuna the yogic experience of substancelessness, the ascertainment of dependent arising, the direct perception of reality as it is, all presuppose a high level of a spiritual realization which entails the abandonment of extreme views and the dissolution of the whole edifice of dualisticthought. To experience sunyata or the substancelessness of phenomena means to become free of all entanglements to this world. Nirvana is simply another expression for this. Interpretations. For Nagarjuna the primary question was not about mind, nor about the origin of knowledge but about reality. Such subjective interest applies more readily to the Yogacara School and the philosophical base of tantric Buddhism. But the interpretations of the most important works of Yogacara are controversial because they can be understood in an ontological sense that is denying the external world and is adopting the view of idealism or in an epistemic sense for the study of the nature of knowledge where perception is a projection of mind. What in Yogacara is termed 'alayavijnana' or the fundamental mind, or in tantric Buddhism 'clear light' or 'Mahamudra', refers to the experience and perception of sunyata. Nagarjuna's philosophy is refering to sunyata itself. In 2003 Tarab Tulku Rinpoche presented an all encompassing position. He says, « that everything existing partakes in a fundamental 'mind-field', which is the basic 'substance' from which basis mind in a more individual way and the individual body develop ».
In order to emphasise that Nagarjuna does not speak only about concepts without substance but also about objects without substance, we could compare his concept of reality to the concept of reality suggested by quantum physics. Physics is not only about concepts but also about the conditions of physical reality. Undoubtedly physics only creates models and thus examines only realities that had been posited by physics itself. Nevertheless we should not go so far as to consider all our perceptions and thought models to be purely adventitious. While the constructions of our mind are not directly identical with reality they are not purely coincidental and normally they are not deceptive. Behind these models are empirical objects and there is some approximation of a structural similarity between a good physical model and the corresponding physical reality. The metaphysical foundations of quantum physics. This is not a presentation or criticism of quantum physics but a discussion of the metaphysical mindsets and principles that underlie quantum physics. The concept of reality in quantum physics can be expressed by the key words: complementarity, four interactions and entanglements [entanglements will not be explained in this short paper. According to Roger Penrose « quantum entanglement is a very strange type of thing. It is somewhere between objects being separate and being in communication with each other » In the long prehistory of quantum physics it could not be proved experimentally whether the smallest elements of light were particles or waves. Many experiments argued in favour of one or the other assumption. Electrons and photons sometimes act like waves and sometimes like particles. This 'behaviour' was named a wave-particle-dualism. The idea of dualism was therein understood as a logical contradiction, in that only one or the other could actually apply; but paradoxically both appeared. According to this understanding electrons and photons cannot be both particles and waves. This is the understanding according to atomism. According to atomism a scientific explanation consists of a reduction of a variable object into its permanent components or mathematical laws that apply to it. This is the fundamental dualistic concept that modern atomism has adopted from the natural philosophy of the ancient Greeks: According to this substance and permanence cannot to be found in objects of perception of the world in which we live, but can be found in the elementary elements making up objects and the mathematical order applying to them. These material and immaterial foundations hold the world together, they do not change, although everything else changes. According to the expectation of atomism it should be possible to reduce an object to its independent elements or to its mathematical laws or to its simple and fundamental principles and according to these the fundamental elements must be either particles or waves, not both.
What is to be understood by independent elements? As mentioned before: Plato made a distinction between two forms of being. Particularly in the second part of his 'Parmenides' he distinguished between on the one hand singular objects, which exist exclusively through participation and insofar as this is the case they have no own being and on the other hand ideas that do have an own being. Traditional metaphysics adopted this dualism from Plato. An independent own being is characzerised in traditional metaphysics as something that, as an existing thing, is not dependent on anything else [Descartes], existing by itself, subsisting through itself [More], which is completely unlimited by others and free from any kind of foreign command [Spinoza], and exists of itself without anything else [Schelling]. Albert Einstein was following this metaphysical tradition when he wrote: « For the classification of things that are introduced in physics, it is essential that these things have for a certain time an independent existence, in so far as these things lie 'in different parts of space'. Without the assumption of such an independent existence [So-sein, suchness] of things which, in terms of ordinary thought are spatially distant from each other, physical thought in the usual sense would not be possible ». This idea of an independent reality was projected on to the basic element of the world of matter by atomism. For atomism, a scientific explanation means to reduce the variability and variety of objects and conditions to their permanent, stable, independent, indivisible elements or to their conformity with mathematical laws. According to the expectations of atomism all variations in nature can be explained in terms of separation, association and movements of unchanging, independent atoms or still more elementary particles. These particles and their conformity to mathematical laws constitute the core of things, underlie everything and hold the world together. The question whether the fundamental objects are waves or particles, was an explosive issue: at stake were the traditional metaphysical concepts of reality available to quantum physics. It became evident that the fundamental reality could not be grasped by traditional concepts of reality. What is the explanatory worth of atomism if it become clear that there are no independent, stable atoms or elementary particles and that objects have no stable core? Were these quantum objects objective, subjective, both or neither? What is reality? Is the quantum world distinct from the world in which we are living? Niels Bohr. In 1927, the physicist Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity into quantum physics. According to this concept the wave form and the particle form are not two separate forms that contradict and exclude each other but are mutually complementary forms that only together can provide a complete description of physical manifestations. According to Niels Bohr, complementarity meant that in the quantum world it is impossible to speak about independent quantum objects because they are in an interactive relashionship with each other, as well as with the instrument if measurement. Niels Bohr emphasised that this interaction between the quantum object and the instrument of measurement was an inseparable element of quantum objects, because it plays a major part in the development of several features of quantum objects. Certain measurements establish electrons or photons as particles and destroy the interference that distinguishes the object as a wave. Other measurements establish the object as a wave. This was Niels Bohr's new concept of reality. From the insight that the quantum object and the instrument of measurement could not be separated, Niels Bohr did not conclude that there are no quantum objects. At least he did not do so when he was arguing in terms of physics. When he spoke about the metaphysics of quantum physics he sometimes took an instrumentalist approach . For Niels Bohr the fundamental physical reality consists of interacting and complementary quantum objects. Interaction in the standard model of quantum physics. In the meantime the concept of the four interactions was introduced into the standard model of quantum physics. These four elementary interactions or four forces obstruct the reduction of quantum objects into independent objects – as Democritus had suggested. The interactions, the forces that operate between the quantum objects, are added to the quantum objects. Instead of singular, independent objects two-body-systems or many-body-systems were established as the base of matter. Between the bodies interacting forces are effective in keeping the bodies together . These interactions are a composite of the bodies. Mostly they are forces of attraction and in the case of electro-magnetic forces they can also be forces of repulsion. One visualises the interaction between the elementary particles as an interchange of elementary particles. The physicist Steven Weinberg writes about this: At the present moment the closest we can come to a unified view of nature is a description in terms of elemntary particles and their mutual interactions . The most familiar are gravitation and electromagnetism, which, because of their long range, are experienced in the everyday world. Gravity holds our feet on the ground and the planets in their orbits. Electromagnetic interactions of electrons and atomic nuclei are responsible for all the familiar chemical and physical properties of ordinary solids, liquids and gases. Next, both in range and familiarity, are the 'strong' interactions, which hold protons and neutrons together in the atomic nucleus. The strong forces are limited in range to about 10-13 centimeter and so are quite insignificant in ordinary life, or even in the scale (10-8 centimeter) of the atom. Least familiar are the 'weak' interactions. They are of such short range (less than 10-15 centimeter) and are so weak that they do not seem to play a rôle in holding anything together » . In this respect the explanations enter into very difficult and subtle particulars. How for example, can an electron which consists only of one particle have an interaction with another quantum object? What part of itself can it emit if it consists only of one particle? This question can be answered by the concept of interactions. In fact an electron does not exist of only a single particle exactly because the interaction of the electron is a part of it. In an article from 1978 about super-gravitation the two physicists Daniel Z. Freedman and Pieter von Nieuwenhuizen wrote about it as follows: « The observed electron mass is the sum of the 'bare mass' and the 'self-energy' resulting from the interaction of the electron with its own electromagnetic field. Only the sum of the two terms is observable ». What quantum physics knows about interactions is here summarised in the words of the physicist Gerhard 't Hooft who writes: « An electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles, which it continually emits and absorbs. This cloud does not consist of photons only, but also of pairs of charged particles, for example electrons and their anti-particles, the positrons »« Even a quark is surrounded by a cloud of gluons and pairs of quark and anti-quark » . Singular, isolated, independent quarks have never been observed. In the new research this phenomenon is called 'confinement'. This means quarks are captives, they cannot appear as a single quark but only as one of a pair or as one of a trio. When you try to separate two quarks by force, there will appear new quarks between them, that combine into pairs and trios. Claudio Rebbi and other physicists have reportet: « Between the quarks and gluons inside an elementary particle, additional quarks and gluons are continously formed and after a short time again subside » . These clouds of virtual particles represent or produce interactions. At the central core of quantum physics, it consists of a new concept of reality, that no longer perceives singular, independent elements as the fundamental unit of reality but rather two-body-systems or two states of a quantum object or two concepts such as earth & moon, proton & electron, proton & neutron, quark & anti-quark, wave & measuring instrument, particle & measuring instrument, twin photons, superpositions, spin up & spin down, matter & anti-matter, elementary particle & field of force, low of nature & matter, symmetry & anti-symmetry etc. These systems cannot be separated into independent parts. They cannot be reduced to two separate, independent bodies or states, nor is one fudamental and the other derived as the metaphysical either-or-scheme of substantialism or subjectivism usually try to establish. Nor are they joined into a seamless unity, they are not the same, they are not identical, they are not a mysterious wholeness as holism indicates. Nor can one claim that they are nothing but mathematical models that we have constructed and that do not correspond to physical reality, as instrumentalism claims. In physics there is a fundamental reality that is not a one-body-system but a two-body-system or an assembly of bodies, a claud of virtual particles, which surround the central or the 'naked' body. Between these bodies there is an interaction that is one of the composite of these bodies. This understanding of physics cannot be disloged and yet all our metaphysical schemata struggle against it. This cloud does not conform to our traditional metaphysical expectations of that which should delineate and underpin stability, substantiality and order. How can clouds be what we are used to calling the basic elements of matter? How can this small vibrating something be what generations of philosophers and phsicists have been searching for in oder to arrive at the core of matter or at the ultimate reality? Is this supposed to be it? From these little clouds we attempt to use metaphysical interpretation to distil something that has substance and that endures. Entirely within the sense of the substance metaphysics of Plato, Werner Heisenberg said that the mathematical forms are the idea of elementary particles and that the object of elementary particles is corresponding to this mathematical idea. Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker called mathematics 'the essence of nature'. According to the physicist Herwig Schopper, fields of force are the ultimate reality . Some of us want to see reality as a mysterous whole [holism], or dismiss them as a construction without any correspondence to empirical reality [instrumentalism]. All of this only because we do not find it easy to admit that the complex interactions of the world in which we live , have their roots in a reality that is itself a complex reality. It is impossible to escape from the entanglement of this world by quantum physics. It is impossible to find an elementary quantum object that is not dependent on other quantum objects or dependent on parts of itself. It is impossible to dissolve the double-sided character of quantum objects. The fundamental reality of our physical world consists of clouds of interacting quantum objects. Reality is not static, solid or independent. It does not consist of singular, isolated material or immaterial factors, but of systems of dependent bodies. Mostly the systems consist of more than two components, but there are no systems that consist of less that two components. In quantum physics we call such fudamental two-body-systems earth & moon, electron & positron, quark & anti-quark, elementary particle & field of force. Nagarjuna calls his systems or dependent pairs walking person & way to be walked, fire & fuel, agent & action, seer & object of seeing. Both of these models describe two-body-systems or two entities which have bodies that are neither properly separate, nor properly joined together. They do not fall into one, nor do they fall apart. These bodies are not independent and they cannot be observed singly because in their very existence and constitution they are dependent on each other and cannot exist or function independently of each other. They are entangled by interactions, even in a far distance. One of them cannot be reduced to the other; it is not possible to explain one of them on the basis of the other. The resultant systems have a fragile stability, the components of which are maintained by interactions and mutual dependencies that are sometimes known, sometimes not fully known and sometimes as with entangled twin photons for example, totally unknown. What is reality? We have become accustomed to firm ground beneath our feet and fleeting clouds in the sky. The concept of reality of Nagarjuna's philosophy and the concepts of complementarity and interactions of quantum physics teach us something quite different that one could express metaphorically as: everything is built on sand and not even the grains of sand have a solid core or nucleus. There stability is based on the unstable interactions of their component parts.
There apparently is a common ground between buddhist philosophy and quantum physics. There is a surprising parallelism between the philosophical concept of reality articulated by Nagarjuna and the physical concept of reality implied by quantum physics. For neither is there a fundamental core to reality, rather reality consists of systems of interacting objects. Such concepts of reality cannot be reconciled with the substantial, subjective, holistic or instrumentalistic concepts of reality which underlie modern modes of thought. 1. Nagarjuna's concept of reality. Nagarjuna was the most significant Buddhist philosopher of India. According to Etienne Lamotte he lived in the second part of the third century after Christ . His philosophy is of great topical interest. Right to this day it determines the thinking of all the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. We have no assured biographical knowledge about him, other than various legends which I will not enter into here. The authenticity of thirteen of his works is more or less regarded as etablished by the scholastic research. The Danish scholar Ch. Lindtner was particularly concerned with the examination and translation of these thirteen works . Nagarjuna's main work, Mulamadhyamaka-karika [MMK], is translated into German, English, French and other European languages . Nagarjuna is the founder of the philosophical school called Madhyamaka or Middle Way. The Middle Way indicates a spiritual and philosophical path that aspires to avoid extreme metaphysical concepts, particularly the concepts of substantial and subjective thinking in their various forms. In his main work [MMK] the Middle Way is described as follows: « What arises dependently [pratityasamutpada] is pronounced to be substancelessness [sunyata]. This is nothing but a dependent concept [prajnapti]. Substancelessness [sunyata] constitutes the middle way ». Nagarjuna's philosophy consists principally of two aspects. The first aspect is an exposition of a concept of reality [sunyata, pratityasamutpada], according to which fundamental reality has no firm core and does not consist of independent, substantial components but of two-body-systems. Of material or immaterial bodies which reciprocally affect each other. This concept of reality is diametrically opposed to one of the key concepts of traditional Indian metaphysics: 'svabhava' or 'own being'. The second aspect is an answer to the inner contradictions of four extreme concepts of reality which are not exhaustively presented but only indicated in principle. Nevertheless it is easy to recognize the systems of thought to which these indications relate. This is important as it is from this recognition that we can identify those aspects of our extreme metaphysical positions that make it impossible for us to recognize the nature of reality. This is not only a debate within the traditional metaphysics of India. We can relate these four extreme propositions to the substantial, subjective, holistic and instrumentalist modes of thought found in the modern world. In order to effectively undermine these modes of thought one first has to recognize them as such. Therefore without any claim to completeness we can go to a brief outline of these four modes of thought: (1.) Substantialism. Substance is something that has independent existence [Webster's New World Dictionary, New York 1968]. In Europe, substantialism is at the centre of traditional metaphysics, beginning with pre-Socratic philosophers [like Parmenides and Heraclitus, two critics of substantial thought] through Plato, up to Immanuel Kant. According to traditional metaphysics, substance or own being is something that has independent existence, something unchangeable, eternal and existing by itself. Substance is the underlying basis for everything else, the non-material foundation of the world in which we live. Plato made a distinction between two forms of being. Particularly in the second part of his 'Parmenides' he distinguished between on the one hand singular objects, which exist exclusively through participation and insofar as this is the case they have no own being and on the other hand ideas that do have an own being. Traditional metaphysics adopted this dualism from Plato. An independent own being is characzerised in traditional metaphysics as something that, as an existing thing, is not dependent on anything else [Descartes], existing by itself, subsisting through itself [More], which is completely unlimited by others and free from any kind of foreign command [Spinoza], and exists of itself without anything else [Schelling]. In traditional metaphysics the highest substance was often understood as God or as a divine being. Since Kant's so called 'Copernican revolution' the primary question of philosophy is no longer to know reality, but rather to know mind or the source of perception and knowledge. For this reason the traditional metaphysics has lost ground in the modern world. In fact the central concepts of the traditional metaphysics such as being, substance, reality, essence, etc had been replaced by the reductionist modes of thought of modern sciences. Now atoms, elementary particles, energy, fields of force, laws of nature etc are seen as the fundamental ground for everything else. (2.) Subjectivism. By subjectivist modes of thought we look towards the turning of attention to the subject that resulted from the changes created by René Descartes. According to this doctrine, consciousness is that which is primarily existent and everything else is merely content or a form or a creation of that consciousness. The high point of this kind of subjectivism is represented by the idealism of Berkeley. The ideas of Kant can be considered as a moderated subjectivism or idealism. Since René Descartes, subjectivity or self-awareness has become the fulcrum for modern philosophical thought lending evidential proof and certainty of reality. This view has been continually brought into doubt by the modern physical sciences, however these doubts have not lead to a new and complementary concept of reality but to a calamitous separation between philosophy and the modern physical sciences. It has served only to sharpen that dualism that preoccupies modern thought. According to the physicist P.C.W.Davies electrons, photons or atoms do not exist, they are nothing but models of thought. See: P.C.W. Davies, The Ghost in the Atom, Cambridge 1986 (3.) Holism. The view that an organic or integrated whole has a reality independent of and greater than the sum of its parts [Webster's Dictionary, New York 1968]. This third approach tries to avoid the calamitous either-or-scheme of the first two approaches by fusing subject and object into one whole, such that there are no longer any parts but only one identity: all is one. That whole is made absolute and is mystified. It becomes an independent unity that exists without dependence on its parts. Wholeness is understood as something concrete, as if it were an object of experience. As a philosophical approach found in great periods of European history of philosophy, this view is connected with names like Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Schelling. In quantum physics holism is represented by David Bohm . (4.) Instrumentalism. The fourth approach consists in refuting or ignoring the existence of subject and object. Instead of favouring einther one or the other or the two together, this metaphysical approach refutes them both. The search for reality is according to this viewpoint insignificant or meaningless. Instrumentalism is very modern, intelligent [for example in the person of Ernst Cassirer], and sometimes somewhat captious. It is difficult to disengage from it. As an extension of subjectivism it consists of regarding thinking as thinking in models, which is regarded as a working with information without concern as to what phenomena the information is about. It inherits this problem from subjectivism, about which the philosopher Donald Davidson wrote: « Once one makes the decision for the Cartesian approach, it seems that one is unable to indicate what ones proofs are evidence for ». Instrumentalism is a collective term that denotes a variety of scientific approaches. They have the common feature of considering the totality of human knowledge, including scientific constructs, statements and theories, as not at all or sometimes merely not primarily, realistic reproductions of the structure of reality. Rather it considers them to be the result of human's interactions with nature for the purpose of establishing theoretically and practically successful models. For instrumentalism theories are not a description of the world but are an instrument for a systematic classification and explanation of observations and for the predictions of facts. The instrumentalist approach is outlined by the experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger. Zeilinger stated in an interview: « In classical physics we speak of a world of things that exists somewhere outside and we describe their nature. In quantum physics we have learned that we have to be very careful about this. Ultimately physical sciences are not sciences of nature but sciences of statements about nature. Nature in itself is always a construction of mind. Niels Bohr once put it like this: There is no world of quantum, there is only a quantum mechanical description ». Nagarjuna presents these four extreme concepts of reality in a scheme that is called in Sanskrit: catuskoti and in Greek: tetralemma. In a short form they can be expressed as follows: Things do not arise substantially: 1. either out of themselves, 2. nor out of something else, 3. nor out of both, 4. nor without a cause. Behind this scheme there are, as metioned before, four concepts of reality that can be related to substantial, subjective, holistic and instrumentalist modes of thought in the modern world. It would be difficult to find a modern person who does not, in his own way, hold one of these four extreme views. This shows that Nagarjuna's philosophy is very up-to-date. Nagarjuna did not refute 1. the substantial modes of thought in oder to end up in 2. subjectivism, even though this is often claimed against him. Nor did he refute the either or mode of thought in order to end with a view of 3. holism, identity, or wholeness, which some benevolent interpreters say of him. Nor did he refute holism in order to end up at 4. instrumentalism, as is believed by many modern interpreters in imitation of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Nagarjuna does not fall into any of these extremes because these are the exact four extreme metaphysical concepts that he systematically refutes. Already in the very first verse of the MMK, he points out not only the dilemma but the whole tetralemma of our thinking. That verse states: « Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause does anything whatever anywhere arises ». This verse can be understood as the principal statement of the Mulamadhyamaka-karika [MMK]: The refutation of the four extreme metaphysical views, that cannot be reconciled with the dependent arising of things. If this is the case, the remainder of the MMK would be merely a clarification of this first verse. Therefore this requires careful examination. What is the assertion made by this verse? That nothing can be found, that there is nothing, that nothing exists? Was Nagarjuna denying the external world? Did he wish to refute that which evidently is? Did he want to call into question the world in which we live? Did he wish to deny the presence everyehere of things that somehow arise? If by 'arise' we understand the notion of the empirical arising of things then we are obliged to argue that if a thing does not arise out of itself, it must arise out of something else. So we should ask: what is the significance of the concept 'to arise'?
In another text, Nagarjuna himself gives some indication of how to understand this concept. He writes in his work Yuktisastika « That which has arisen dependently on this and that that has not arisen substantially [svabhavatah]. What has not arisen substantially, how can it literally [nama] be called 'arisen'? ». « That which originates due to a cause and does not abide without [certain] conditions but disappears when the conditions are absent, how can it be understood as 'to exist' »? By the concepts of 'arising' and 'exist' Nagarjuna does not mean the empirical but the substantial arising or existence. When in many other passages of Mulamadhyamaka-karika Nagarjuna states that things do not arise , that they do not exist , that they are not to be found , that they are not , that they are unreal , then clearly this has the meaning : Things do not arise substantially, they do not exist out of themselves, their independence cannot be found, they are dependent and in this sense they are substantially unreal. Nagarjuna only refutes the idea of a substantial arising of things, of an absolute and independent existence. He does not refute the empirical existence of things. This is what he is explaining when he states: « 'It exists' implies grasping after eternity. 'It does not exist' implies the philosophy of annihilation. Therefore, a discerning person should not decide on either existence or non-existence ». For Nagarjuna the expression 'to exist' has the meaning 'to exist substantially'. His issue is not the empirical existence of things [dharma] but the idea of a permanent thing and of things having a substance. Only the idea of an own being, without dependence to something else, is refuted by Nagarjuna. Things do not arise out of themselves, the do not exist absolutely, their permanent being is not to be found, they are not independent but they are dependently arising.
The many interpretations of Nagarjuna that claim that he is also refuting the empirical existence of objects, are making an inadmissible generalization that suggests Nagarjuna approaches subjectivism or instrumentalism. Such interpretations originate in metaphysical approaches that themselves have a difficulty in recognizing the empirical existence of the presenting data, which is not at all the case with Nagarjuna.
How does Nagarjuna present the dependence of phenomena? The starting point of the MMK is the double nature of phenomena. These fundamental two-body-systems cannot be further analytically divided. The two bodies constitute a system of two material or immaterial components that complement each other. One of the components cannot exist without the other one; each forms the counterpart of the other. In the MMK Nagarjuna concerns himself with such concrete two-body-systems as: a thing & its conditions, a walking person & the way to be walked, seer & seen, cause & effect, an entity & its characteristics, a passion & a passionate person, arising & conditions of arising, agent & action, fire & fuel. Some examples of this dependence of the two parts are duscussed below.
In this way we are led into the centre of Nagarjuna's philosophy. In the first ten, and some subsequent chapters of MMK Nagarjuna emphasises one central idea: material or immaterial bodies of two-body-systems are not identical nor can they be separated. The most important characteristic of phenomena is their interdependence and the resultant: substancelessness: the impossibility of existing individually or independently. This is the meaning of sunyata: phenomena are without own being and without independence. Reality does not consist of single, isolated material or immaterial components; phenomena arise only in dependence on other phenomena. They do not arise substantially because dependent phenomena can have no independent existence.
A thing is not independent of its conditions, nor is it identical with them. Walking does not exist without the way to be walked. The walking person and the way are not one. A Seer is not the same as the seen object, but a seer without an object does not exist. There can be no cause without an effect, or an effect without a cause. The concept 'cause' has no meaning without the concept 'effect'. Cause and effect are not one, but they cannot be separated into two independent concepts. Without a characteristic we cannot speak of a characterised, or of a characterised without a characteristic. How could there be a passionate person without passion? When there are no conditions of arising there is no arising, neither exists standing alone. Without action there can be no agent, without fire there can be nothing designated as fuel.
The material or immaterial components of a two-body-system do not exist in isolation, they are not one and yet they are not independent of each other: and because of this they are not 'real'. For two complementary phenomena or for double concepts the nature and the existence of each is dependent of the other. The one arises with the other and disappears with the other. This is why a thing arises substantially, neither out of itself, nor out of anotherone, nor out of both, nor without a cause. There is no fundamental core to reality; rather reality consists of systems of interacting bodies.
This concept of reality is initially merely an idea; a pointer to the reality which cannot be described in words. One who can speak about concept-free reality has not experienced it. For the Buddhist tradition based on Nagarjuna the yogic experience of substancelessness, the ascertainment of dependent arising, the direct perception of reality as it is, all presuppose a high level of a spiritual realization which entails the abandonment of extreme views and the dissolution of the whole edifice of dualisticthought. To experience sunyata or the substancelessness of phenomena means to become free of all entanglements to this world. Nirvana is simply another expression for this. Interpretations. For Nagarjuna the primary question was not about mind, nor about the origin of knowledge but about reality. Such subjective interest applies more readily to the Yogacara School and the philosophical base of tantric Buddhism. But the interpretations of the most important works of Yogacara are controversial because they can be understood in an ontological sense that is denying the external world and is adopting the view of idealism or in an epistemic sense for the study of the nature of knowledge where perception is a projection of mind. What in Yogacara is termed 'alayavijnana' or the fundamental mind, or in tantric Buddhism 'clear light' or 'Mahamudra', refers to the experience and perception of sunyata. Nagarjuna's philosophy is refering to sunyata itself. In 2003 Tarab Tulku Rinpoche presented an all encompassing position. He says, « that everything existing partakes in a fundamental 'mind-field', which is the basic 'substance' from which basis mind in a more individual way and the individual body develop ».
In order to emphasise that Nagarjuna does not speak only about concepts without substance but also about objects without substance, we could compare his concept of reality to the concept of reality suggested by quantum physics. Physics is not only about concepts but also about the conditions of physical reality. Undoubtedly physics only creates models and thus examines only realities that had been posited by physics itself. Nevertheless we should not go so far as to consider all our perceptions and thought models to be purely adventitious. While the constructions of our mind are not directly identical with reality they are not purely coincidental and normally they are not deceptive. Behind these models are empirical objects and there is some approximation of a structural similarity between a good physical model and the corresponding physical reality. The metaphysical foundations of quantum physics. This is not a presentation or criticism of quantum physics but a discussion of the metaphysical mindsets and principles that underlie quantum physics. The concept of reality in quantum physics can be expressed by the key words: complementarity, four interactions and entanglements [entanglements will not be explained in this short paper. According to Roger Penrose « quantum entanglement is a very strange type of thing. It is somewhere between objects being separate and being in communication with each other » In the long prehistory of quantum physics it could not be proved experimentally whether the smallest elements of light were particles or waves. Many experiments argued in favour of one or the other assumption. Electrons and photons sometimes act like waves and sometimes like particles. This 'behaviour' was named a wave-particle-dualism. The idea of dualism was therein understood as a logical contradiction, in that only one or the other could actually apply; but paradoxically both appeared. According to this understanding electrons and photons cannot be both particles and waves. This is the understanding according to atomism. According to atomism a scientific explanation consists of a reduction of a variable object into its permanent components or mathematical laws that apply to it. This is the fundamental dualistic concept that modern atomism has adopted from the natural philosophy of the ancient Greeks: According to this substance and permanence cannot to be found in objects of perception of the world in which we live, but can be found in the elementary elements making up objects and the mathematical order applying to them. These material and immaterial foundations hold the world together, they do not change, although everything else changes. According to the expectation of atomism it should be possible to reduce an object to its independent elements or to its mathematical laws or to its simple and fundamental principles and according to these the fundamental elements must be either particles or waves, not both.
What is to be understood by independent elements? As mentioned before: Plato made a distinction between two forms of being. Particularly in the second part of his 'Parmenides' he distinguished between on the one hand singular objects, which exist exclusively through participation and insofar as this is the case they have no own being and on the other hand ideas that do have an own being. Traditional metaphysics adopted this dualism from Plato. An independent own being is characzerised in traditional metaphysics as something that, as an existing thing, is not dependent on anything else [Descartes], existing by itself, subsisting through itself [More], which is completely unlimited by others and free from any kind of foreign command [Spinoza], and exists of itself without anything else [Schelling]. Albert Einstein was following this metaphysical tradition when he wrote: « For the classification of things that are introduced in physics, it is essential that these things have for a certain time an independent existence, in so far as these things lie 'in different parts of space'. Without the assumption of such an independent existence [So-sein, suchness] of things which, in terms of ordinary thought are spatially distant from each other, physical thought in the usual sense would not be possible ». This idea of an independent reality was projected on to the basic element of the world of matter by atomism. For atomism, a scientific explanation means to reduce the variability and variety of objects and conditions to their permanent, stable, independent, indivisible elements or to their conformity with mathematical laws. According to the expectations of atomism all variations in nature can be explained in terms of separation, association and movements of unchanging, independent atoms or still more elementary particles. These particles and their conformity to mathematical laws constitute the core of things, underlie everything and hold the world together. The question whether the fundamental objects are waves or particles, was an explosive issue: at stake were the traditional metaphysical concepts of reality available to quantum physics. It became evident that the fundamental reality could not be grasped by traditional concepts of reality. What is the explanatory worth of atomism if it become clear that there are no independent, stable atoms or elementary particles and that objects have no stable core? Were these quantum objects objective, subjective, both or neither? What is reality? Is the quantum world distinct from the world in which we are living? Niels Bohr. In 1927, the physicist Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity into quantum physics. According to this concept the wave form and the particle form are not two separate forms that contradict and exclude each other but are mutually complementary forms that only together can provide a complete description of physical manifestations. According to Niels Bohr, complementarity meant that in the quantum world it is impossible to speak about independent quantum objects because they are in an interactive relashionship with each other, as well as with the instrument if measurement. Niels Bohr emphasised that this interaction between the quantum object and the instrument of measurement was an inseparable element of quantum objects, because it plays a major part in the development of several features of quantum objects. Certain measurements establish electrons or photons as particles and destroy the interference that distinguishes the object as a wave. Other measurements establish the object as a wave. This was Niels Bohr's new concept of reality. From the insight that the quantum object and the instrument of measurement could not be separated, Niels Bohr did not conclude that there are no quantum objects. At least he did not do so when he was arguing in terms of physics. When he spoke about the metaphysics of quantum physics he sometimes took an instrumentalist approach . For Niels Bohr the fundamental physical reality consists of interacting and complementary quantum objects. Interaction in the standard model of quantum physics. In the meantime the concept of the four interactions was introduced into the standard model of quantum physics. These four elementary interactions or four forces obstruct the reduction of quantum objects into independent objects – as Democritus had suggested. The interactions, the forces that operate between the quantum objects, are added to the quantum objects. Instead of singular, independent objects two-body-systems or many-body-systems were established as the base of matter. Between the bodies interacting forces are effective in keeping the bodies together . These interactions are a composite of the bodies. Mostly they are forces of attraction and in the case of electro-magnetic forces they can also be forces of repulsion. One visualises the interaction between the elementary particles as an interchange of elementary particles. The physicist Steven Weinberg writes about this: At the present moment the closest we can come to a unified view of nature is a description in terms of elemntary particles and their mutual interactions . The most familiar are gravitation and electromagnetism, which, because of their long range, are experienced in the everyday world. Gravity holds our feet on the ground and the planets in their orbits. Electromagnetic interactions of electrons and atomic nuclei are responsible for all the familiar chemical and physical properties of ordinary solids, liquids and gases. Next, both in range and familiarity, are the 'strong' interactions, which hold protons and neutrons together in the atomic nucleus. The strong forces are limited in range to about 10-13 centimeter and so are quite insignificant in ordinary life, or even in the scale (10-8 centimeter) of the atom. Least familiar are the 'weak' interactions. They are of such short range (less than 10-15 centimeter) and are so weak that they do not seem to play a rôle in holding anything together » . In this respect the explanations enter into very difficult and subtle particulars. How for example, can an electron which consists only of one particle have an interaction with another quantum object? What part of itself can it emit if it consists only of one particle? This question can be answered by the concept of interactions. In fact an electron does not exist of only a single particle exactly because the interaction of the electron is a part of it. In an article from 1978 about super-gravitation the two physicists Daniel Z. Freedman and Pieter von Nieuwenhuizen wrote about it as follows: « The observed electron mass is the sum of the 'bare mass' and the 'self-energy' resulting from the interaction of the electron with its own electromagnetic field. Only the sum of the two terms is observable ». What quantum physics knows about interactions is here summarised in the words of the physicist Gerhard 't Hooft who writes: « An electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles, which it continually emits and absorbs. This cloud does not consist of photons only, but also of pairs of charged particles, for example electrons and their anti-particles, the positrons »« Even a quark is surrounded by a cloud of gluons and pairs of quark and anti-quark » . Singular, isolated, independent quarks have never been observed. In the new research this phenomenon is called 'confinement'. This means quarks are captives, they cannot appear as a single quark but only as one of a pair or as one of a trio. When you try to separate two quarks by force, there will appear new quarks between them, that combine into pairs and trios. Claudio Rebbi and other physicists have reportet: « Between the quarks and gluons inside an elementary particle, additional quarks and gluons are continously formed and after a short time again subside » . These clouds of virtual particles represent or produce interactions. At the central core of quantum physics, it consists of a new concept of reality, that no longer perceives singular, independent elements as the fundamental unit of reality but rather two-body-systems or two states of a quantum object or two concepts such as earth & moon, proton & electron, proton & neutron, quark & anti-quark, wave & measuring instrument, particle & measuring instrument, twin photons, superpositions, spin up & spin down, matter & anti-matter, elementary particle & field of force, low of nature & matter, symmetry & anti-symmetry etc. These systems cannot be separated into independent parts. They cannot be reduced to two separate, independent bodies or states, nor is one fudamental and the other derived as the metaphysical either-or-scheme of substantialism or subjectivism usually try to establish. Nor are they joined into a seamless unity, they are not the same, they are not identical, they are not a mysterious wholeness as holism indicates. Nor can one claim that they are nothing but mathematical models that we have constructed and that do not correspond to physical reality, as instrumentalism claims. In physics there is a fundamental reality that is not a one-body-system but a two-body-system or an assembly of bodies, a claud of virtual particles, which surround the central or the 'naked' body. Between these bodies there is an interaction that is one of the composite of these bodies. This understanding of physics cannot be disloged and yet all our metaphysical schemata struggle against it. This cloud does not conform to our traditional metaphysical expectations of that which should delineate and underpin stability, substantiality and order. How can clouds be what we are used to calling the basic elements of matter? How can this small vibrating something be what generations of philosophers and phsicists have been searching for in oder to arrive at the core of matter or at the ultimate reality? Is this supposed to be it? From these little clouds we attempt to use metaphysical interpretation to distil something that has substance and that endures. Entirely within the sense of the substance metaphysics of Plato, Werner Heisenberg said that the mathematical forms are the idea of elementary particles and that the object of elementary particles is corresponding to this mathematical idea. Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker called mathematics 'the essence of nature'. According to the physicist Herwig Schopper, fields of force are the ultimate reality . Some of us want to see reality as a mysterous whole [holism], or dismiss them as a construction without any correspondence to empirical reality [instrumentalism]. All of this only because we do not find it easy to admit that the complex interactions of the world in which we live , have their roots in a reality that is itself a complex reality. It is impossible to escape from the entanglement of this world by quantum physics. It is impossible to find an elementary quantum object that is not dependent on other quantum objects or dependent on parts of itself. It is impossible to dissolve the double-sided character of quantum objects. The fundamental reality of our physical world consists of clouds of interacting quantum objects. Reality is not static, solid or independent. It does not consist of singular, isolated material or immaterial factors, but of systems of dependent bodies. Mostly the systems consist of more than two components, but there are no systems that consist of less that two components. In quantum physics we call such fudamental two-body-systems earth & moon, electron & positron, quark & anti-quark, elementary particle & field of force. Nagarjuna calls his systems or dependent pairs walking person & way to be walked, fire & fuel, agent & action, seer & object of seeing. Both of these models describe two-body-systems or two entities which have bodies that are neither properly separate, nor properly joined together. They do not fall into one, nor do they fall apart. These bodies are not independent and they cannot be observed singly because in their very existence and constitution they are dependent on each other and cannot exist or function independently of each other. They are entangled by interactions, even in a far distance. One of them cannot be reduced to the other; it is not possible to explain one of them on the basis of the other. The resultant systems have a fragile stability, the components of which are maintained by interactions and mutual dependencies that are sometimes known, sometimes not fully known and sometimes as with entangled twin photons for example, totally unknown. What is reality? We have become accustomed to firm ground beneath our feet and fleeting clouds in the sky. The concept of reality of Nagarjuna's philosophy and the concepts of complementarity and interactions of quantum physics teach us something quite different that one could express metaphorically as: everything is built on sand and not even the grains of sand have a solid core or nucleus. There stability is based on the unstable interactions of their component parts.
WHO FOUNDED HINDUISM
Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion.
It is not founded by any individual.
Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’.
There are these eternal principles, which stand upon their own foundations without depending on any reasoning, even much less on the authority of sages however great, of Incarnations however brilliant they may have been. We may remark that as this is the unique position in India, our claim is that the Vedanta only can be the universal religion, that it is already the existing universal religion in the world, because it teaches principles and not persons.
Swami Vivekananda wrote: If you want to be religious, enter not the gate of any organised religion. They do a hundred times more evil than good, because they stop the growth of each one's individual development.
Religion is only between you and your God, and no third person must come between you. Think what these organised religions have done!
If you and I organise, we begin to hate every person . It is better not to love, if loving only means hating others. That is no love. That is hell! If loving your own people means hating everybody else, it is the quintessence of selfishness and brutality, and the effect is that it will make you brutes.
Truth is of two kinds:
(1) that which is cognisable by the five ordinary senses of man, and by reasonings based thereon; (2) that which is cognisable by the subtle, super-sensuous power of Yoga.
Knowledge acquired by the first means is called science; and knowledge acquired by the second is called the Vedas.
The whole body of super sensuous truths, having no beginning or end, and called by the name of Vedas, is ever existent. The Creator Himself is creating, preserving and destroying the universe with the help of these truths.
The person in whom this super-sensuous power is manifested is called a Rishi, and the super-sensuous truths, which he realises by this power, are called the Vedas.This Rishihood, this power of super-sensuous perception of the Vedas, is real religion.
And so long as this does not develop in the life of an initiate, so long is religion a mere empty word to him, and it is to be understood that he has not taken yet the first step in religion.
The authority of the Vedas extends to all ages, climes and persons; that is to say, their application is not confined to any particular place, time and persons.
The Vedas are the only exponent of the universal religion.
How did Hinduism start and when did it begin?
Hinduism is God centred. Other religions are prophet centred.Hinduism is based upon Eternal Principles. Eternal principles apply to all human beings everywhere.
The laws of physics exist and work all the time.
The healing principle will get to work immediately the moment a little cut is sustained on a finger. No one can tell when this healing principle began or when it will end.
It is there existing eternally, all pervading (available everywhere), omniscient (aware all the time and therefore healing principle gets to work when injury is sustained). (These simplified examples serve to understand God’s power: omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent).
If a great scientist like Einstein, discovered or realized laws of physics, Hinduism would call him a great Rishi (Maharshi or seer of truth.) Such seers of truth are not confined to any one age or country. Self realized persons like Jesus Christ would be called Rishis (seers) and their teachings would be readily acceptable to those who properly understand the principles of ‘Hinduism’.
From the ancient times, many great Rishis achieved self-realisation through such practices as meditation and austerities and they realised knowledge concerning Eternal Principles. Their knowledge, taught to disciples, and eventually made available in written form, is known as the Vedas (Ved = knowledge), the scriptures upon which Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) is based
Sanatan means eternal and Dharma means religion.
The word 'Hinduism ‘ does not appear anywhere in Hindu scriptures, The proper name for Hinduism is ‘Sanatan Dharma’ Sanatan = eternal Dharma = religion.
Hinduism is God centred whereas other religions are prophet centred. For this reason the whole of mankind has to abide by (or is affected by) the eternal principles. The question of acceptance or rejection of Hinduism by any individual simply does not arise, or is irrelevant.
It is illogical to talk of conversion to Hinduism. It is like saying that the laws of physics (e.g.gravity) will apply to you only if you belong to an organization or organized religion.
[The ceremonies and rituals connected with Hinduism (and other religions) are designed to cultivate increased spirituality. At advanced level of spirituality, rituals and ceremonies are dispensed with]
He who has realised the Spreme Entity and does not derive pleasure from the senses, he on account of being self-fulfilled, does not incur sin even by not performing the rites which are thus the cause of the movement of the Wheel of the World.
Even the gods cannot prevail against him (he who has realised the Spreme Entity). There need be no performance of any action even in the form of worship of gods for averting obstacles.
Gita Ch. 3 Shloka 17:The Blessed Lord said: But that man who rejoices only in the Self and is satisfied (only) with the Self, and is contended only in the Self - for him there is no duty to perform
The Sages of India
The very fountain-head of our religion is in the Vedas (Srutis) which are perfectly impersonal; the persons all come in the Smritis and Puranas- the great Avataras, Incarnations of God, Prophets, and so forth.
[Note: Srutis means revealed knowledge; Smriti means memory, history]
And this ought also to be observed that except our religion (Sanatan Dharma; Hinduism), every other religion in the world depends upon the lives of some personal founder or founders.
And this ought also to be observed that except our religion (Sanatan Dharma; Hinduism), every other religion in the world depends upon the lives of some personal founder or founders.
Christianity is built upon the life of Jesus Christ, Mohammedanism (Islam) upon Mohammed, Buddhism upon Buddha, Jainism upon the Jinas, and so on. It naturally follows that there must be in all these religions a good deal of fight about what they call the historical evidences of these great personalities.If at any time the historical evidences about the existence of these personages in ancient times become weak, the whole building of the religion tumbles down and is broken to pieces.
We escaped this fate because our religion is not based upon persons but on principles. That you obey your religion is not because it came through the authority of a sage, no, not even of an Incarnation. Krishna is not the authority of the Vedas, but the Vedas are the authority of Krishna himself. His glory is that he is the greatest preacher of the Vedas that ever existed.So with the other Incarnations; so with all our sages.
Our first principle is that all that is necessary for the perfection of man and for attaining unto freedom is there in the Vedas. You cannot find anything new. You cannot go beyond a perfect unity, which is the goal of all knowledge; this has been already reached there, and it is impossible to go beyond the unity. Religious knowledge became complete when Tat Twam Asi (Thou art That) was discovered, and that was in the Vedas.
What remained was the guidance of people from time to time according to different times and places, according to different circumstances and environments. People had to be guided along the old, old path and for this these great teachers came, these great sages.
Nothing can bear out more clearly this position than the celebrated saying of Sri Krishna in the Gita :
"Whenever virtue subsides and irreligion prevails, I create Myself for the protection of the good; for the destruction of all immorality I am coming from time to time."
What follows? That on the one hand, there are these eternal principles, which stand upon their own foundations without depending on any reasoning, even much less on the authority of sages however great, of Incarnations however brilliant they may have been.
The Vedanta only can be the universal religion, that it is already the existing universal religion in the world, because it teaches principles and not persons.
No religion built upon a person can be taken up as a type by all the races of mankind. In our own country we find that there have been so many grand characters; even in a small city many persons are taken up as types by the different minds in that one city. How is it possible that one person as Mohammed, or Buddha or Christ, can be taken up as the one type for the whole world, nay, that the whole of morality, ethics, spirituality, and religion can be true only from the sanction of that one person, and one person alone?
Now the Vedantic religion does not require any such personal authority. Its sanction is the eternal nature of man, its ethics are based upon the eternal solidarity of man, already existing, already attained and not to be attained.
The Hindu can worship any sage and any saint from any country whatsoever, and as a fact we know that we go and worship many times in the churches of the Christians, and many times in the Mohammedan mosques and that is good. Sanathana Dharma, is the universal religion. It is inclusive enough, it is broad enough to include all the ideals. All the ideals of religion that already exist in the world can be immediately included, and we can patiently wait for all the ideals that are to come in the future to be taken in the same fashion, embraced in the infinite arms of the religion of the Vedanta.
The affirmative attitude of Hinduism toward lifehas been emphasized by its recognition of fourlegitimate and basic desires:
1. Dharma or righteousness
2. Artha or wealth
3. Kama or sense pleasure
4. Moksha or freedom through communion with God or the Infinite.
These four attainments of life are collectively known as Purushartha.
Dharma alone is the gateway to Moksha, to immortality, infinite bliss, supreme peace and highest knowledge. Dharma alone is the primary Purushartha. Dharma is the first and foremost Purushartha.
Dharma is the cementer and sustainer of social life. The rules of Dharma have been laid down for regulating the worldly affairs of men. Dharma brings as its consequence happiness, both in this world and in the next.
Dharma is the means of preserving one’s self. If you transgress it, it will kill you. If you protect it, it will protect you. It is your sole companion after death. It is the sole refuge of humanity.
Dharma (roughly translated as righteousness or virtue, must be at the center and at the circumference are Artha (wealth), Kama (all kinds of desires or pleasures), and Moksha (liberation). All activities in life must revolve around Dharma. Dharma must be kept in focus all the time and adhered to.
Descend we now from the aspirations of philosophy to the religion of the ignorant. At the very outset, it must be understood that there is no polytheism in India. In every temple, if one stands by and listens, one will find the worshippers applying all the attributes of God, including omnipresence, to the images. It is not polytheism, nor would the name henotheism explain the situation. "The rose called by any other name would smell as sweet." Names are not explanations.
The eternal principles apply to all . One does not have to subscribe to a system of belief or carry the banner of any religion to include or exclude the application of eternal principles.
Is the use of images an universal practice? A hundred Dollar currency note is much smaller than the Sunday newspaper. The newspaper would be discarded within a few days. Why attach so much more importance to a much smaller piece of paper that is called a hundred Dollar note? After all both the newspaper and the currency note are pieces of paper. The image on the currency note makes it different. The image attaches to the paper ( currency note) values, qualities, awe (if it is a million Dollar note), etc. Power of the human consciousness is transmitted to the currency note. An atheist who decries the use of images can empty his wallet of all the Dollar notes and send them to us.
I can pull out a handkerchief from my pocket, blow my nose into it and then ask an audience to salute my handkerchief. Why salute the flag of the nation and not my handkerchief? After all both the handkerchief and the flag are inanimate pieces of cloth! I can hear the patriot saying that he is prepared to lay down his life for his nation's flag. Why would he not do the same for my handkerchief?
Power of the human consciousness is transmitted to the piece of cloth we call a national flag whereby the inanimate piece of cloth acquires qualities of patriotism, noble values, pride, loyalty, identity etc.
If a stranger were to spit on your mother's photo, why would you feel hurt? After all it is only a piece of paper with dots that are lighter or darker, giving an image or resemblance of the face of mother. This piece of paper has acquired the ability to make you angry or happy, or sad or fill you with memories and inspiration. An inanimate piece of paper infused with such powers!
My mother scribbled three or four lines on a piece of paper and sent it off to me. Another gentleman sent me a long discursive fifty page letter. Now, which is more weighty? But the feeling in my mother's few lines is beyond measure; it is sacred. The other stuff cannot stand comparison with it. -Saint Vinoba Bhave
The Wailing Wall in Jerusalem is revered by the Jewish community. Why kiss the wall and why does it invoke feelings of reverence? Inanimate stones or bricks! Power of human consciousness is attached to it. A photograph of the wall (image) would invoke reverence and respect for the piece of paper upon which it is printed.
Islam: Pilgrims to Mecca throw stones at the three pillars that are infused with the images of devils!
And why kiss the stone of Kaaba? And if someone were to spit upon this stone of Kaaba, why would it invoke and provoke angry reactions? After all that is only a piece of stone! Muslim pilgrims visiting the Kaaba temple go around it seven times.
Any pilgrim going to a place of pilgrimage does so with the utmost worshipful attitude of the mind. Why the display of reverence and the worshipful attitude towards the stone of Kaaba? After all the stone of Kaaba is an inanimate object.
A sacred fount exists near the Kaaba. Its water is held sacred because it has been traditionally regarded as sacred like the waters of the river Ganges since pre-Islamic times (Zam-Zam water). Even today, Muslim pilgrims who go to the Kaaba for Haj regard this Zam-Zam water with reverence and take some bottled water with them as sacred water.
Chemically speaking, water is water. What is the difference between this Zam-Zam water and the water that flows downstream from some nearby mountains?
The Cross of Christianity is a piece of wood or metal or stone. Why do worshippers bow their heads before such image that is made of inanimate materials?
The qualifications at a university college are proudly hung on the wall for all to see. A piece of paper, framed and attracting such high esteem! If one thinks that the use of image is not universal then make sure to remove that inanimate piece of paper (certifications) and promptly consign that to the garbage can.
===================================
===================================
Monday, August 18, 2008
RELIGION DIVIDES OR UNITES
Religion has been one of the most potent forces of union and integration and also, unfortunately of conflict and disintegration. Apart from the history of religious persecution and wars which the world has seen through the centuries, the present national and international scene provides ample evidence of quarrels caused by religion. It is not surprising, therefore, to find many sincere, thoughtful, intelligent, peace-loving and well-intentioned people, who prefer to remain aloof from religion, and become agnostics. Nor is it to be wondered that quasi religious movements with various names like secularism, Marxism, positivism, scientific humanism, nationalism etc. backed by strong ideological foundations and based on materialistic, non-religious values have sprung up and have spread all over the world. In the socialist and communist countries religion has no place. In western capitalistic societies religion has only a marginal role, being simply allowed to exist as one of the many institutions of society. Except in purely Islamic countries religion is not expected to play any major role in social or national life. Causes of Conflict The secularists and non-religious humanists lay all the blame for the inter-faith conflicts on religion. They view religion as an unavoidable compulsion in man and scornfully consider it as a social evil, which unfortunately, cannot be eliminated. It is an illusory comfort for man in distress, they say, which must some how be accommodated shorn of its unhealthy tendencies like fundamentalism and militancy. These secularists, however, forget that they themselves have contributed no less to the present day uprising of fundamentalism. Men dealing with politics and economics are no less responsible for the problems for which they blame religion. In a grossly inadequate social system where social injustice and gross economic imbalance prevail, divisive forces of religion are bound to erupt. The deprived and oppressed sections of society withdraw into the protective safety of pristine tradition, which is fundamentalism. When these social injustices prompt the faithful to unite and fight for their rights, the same urge becomes political. And these two, fundamentalism and politics, soon form an explosive combination. This does not mean that religion is not to be blamed. Every ideology whether religious, political or socio-economic, howsoever noble when first conceived, invariably gets degenerated into rigid dogmatism and leads to mindless destruction. Secondly, when religious beliefs get institutionalized and become the collective property of a specific group, they degenerate into rigid doctrines, and become potentially dangerous. Vested interests keep alive socially irrelevant dogmas to maintain their hold on the masses. Ambition and lust for power of the leaders spoil the pious atmosphere of religion. Religion as a Uniting Force But there is another side of the picture too. If religion is said to have caused conflicts here and there, it has also promoted global peace. In fact, intensest love that humanity has ever experienced has been generated by religion. The noblest words of peace the world has ever heard have come from men who have been truly religious. If religious motives have caused cruelty and bloodshed, they have also brought into existence many hospitals and asylums. Religion has inspired men to take care not only of human beings but even of the lowliest of animals. Nothing makes us so tender as religion. Religion is neither an escape for the masses nor the opium of the society. It represents essentially an ennobling urge, inherent in man, designated to fulfill higher purposes of human life. It is a tremendous force of personal and social integration. In fact Dharma the Sanskrit word for religion means exactly that; the factor or force which is capable of uniting, integrating and harmonizing society. Although religion is considered a unifying force, the only instance in Indian history when it was effectively used as such, was when Shankracharya achieved the remarkable feat of uniting all the various branches and shades of Hinduism. But in doing so, he had to defeat jains and Buddhists to Hinduism or the Vedic Sanatandharma. But now things have changed completely. Van-quishing in debate or war or conversion by force is now impossible. Moreover, during Shankra’s period religion had much deeper roots and played a major role in the life of the individual and the society. In other words people were far more religious.There are a number of factors in society, which adversely affect the integrating function of religion, and unfortunately many of them are active in India. Religion loses much of its integrating function: 1. In societies where more than one religion are practiced. 2. When the established expectations of a group are frustrated. Those who are frustrated become ‘more religious’ and use religion to express their sense of separation and as a weapon to fight for their rights. 3. When society is sharply divided into classes, which is felt as an oppressive fact. 4. When social change reduces appeal to rituals and belief systems. 5. When mobility from society to society is great. 6. When outside pressures split the society. However there is another hopeful sociological phenomenon. In the face of these disintegrating influences there is a tendency in religion to recover or discover some unifying religious theme. Various forces start working to give force to this unifying, integrating and harmonizing function of religion. The inter-religious conferences, debates and exchange of ideas, polarization of liberal religious forces, which we see in India, are a part of the same phenomenon. Let us, therefore, search for the unifying theme in this medley of disarray and disharmony of various religions. Search for a Unifying Force It is pointless to speculate on the possibility of one religion for all. Nor can a world religion emerge and become acceptable to all, from an agreement among a group of well-intentioned individuals. It is often suggested that what is common to the existing religions must be emphasized, rather than the differences. But in this attempt we cannot proceed very far. There cannot be anything common so far as mythology and rituals are concerned, which differ widely and are related to the distinctive cultural traditions. Unity in the basic philosophical doctrines and spiritual message can be sought, but only upto a point, because there are irreducible differences in the doctrinal core of each religion. There may be a broadly similar ethical basis, but there is much more to religion than the ethical principles. It is primarily a question of faith, which may not shake hands with ethics or philosophy. Instead of searching for common points among religions therefore, we must try to seek unity in diversity i.e., to accept diversity itself as the essential ingredient of unity. Just as no two individuals can be similar in constitution and temperament and can yet live harmoniously together, so also all these religions with their sects and sub-sects can be accepted as so many valid means of reaching the same goal, serving the same individual or social function. We must learn that the truth can be expressed in different ways, just as the sun seen from countless different angles and distances can appear differently. Another way in which unity may be sought is by considering these religions not as contradictory but complementary. Each religion has its own specialty, a peculiarity not found in another religion. Each religion takes up as it were a part of the great universal truth and works it up. Thus they are not contradictory, but complementary. It is addition and not exclusion. Each religion with its peculiarity satisfies the minds of a different group of individuals. All these systems are different forces in the economy of God, working for the good of mankind. Our watchword must be acceptance, not merely tolerance.Unfortunately these rationalizations to arrive at a harmony between various religions cannot go deep into the highly emotive roots of religion, embedded in the unconscious, except that they may create better understanding at the higher levels of society. It is doubtful whether intellectual understanding and even propagation of ideals relating to religious harmony through the mass media of communication percolate down to the masses. Practical aspect of Religion Religion is not politics or economics, which may grow or spread through symposia or conferences, lectures and articles. It is life, it is realization, it is being and becoming. If anything, it is practical living. It moves and spreads with conduct and example. Hence far more important is to set examples of ennobling religious values in actual life. Spiritual realization radiates faith and goodwill in ever widening circles. That is the way to strike at the root of strife and achieve unity. Now this living the religious life must be done at two levels: the inclusive and the intensive. Inter-faith unity sarva dharma samabhava have two words; sarva which points to man to man relationship, the social dimension, the welfare of the world, the love for the neighbor the jaga-hitaya aspect, while the dharma or the faith aspect stresses man to God relationship, the love of God, one’s own salvation or atmano mokshartha part of the matter. Both are inter-related and interdependent. Our personal spiritual life must be made deeper with the help of prayer, meditation and other spiritual exercises. At the same time it must be widened with the help of service, charity, compassion, and giving of what little we can to our neighbor. This is how we can truly become religious. Now, the question is, can we make religion more dynamic, make it play a greater role, in the day-to-day life of the average citizen? This is what almost each of the galaxies of great religious reformers born in India has tried to do. And if we want religion to play a major role in uniting the nation – which it must do, because it is the only lasting and deeper way of achieving it – then what we need today are not religio - political or religio - social leaders, but real saints, the religio - spiritual leaders. 1. There is a great need today for a theoretical or ideological research within each religion to discover and highlight the universal aspects, relevant to the present times. Even re-defining and re-interpreting the fundamentals of one’s own religion is needed.
Swami Vivekananda gave an entirely new and non-sectarian definition of religion: “Manifestation of the potential divinity of the soul”. He classified the means and the methods on a more acceptable psychological basis into four yogas : Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Raja Yoga. A similar thing may be tried, say, in Jainism. The word Jina is a non sectarian word meaning, one who has conquered his baser passions etc. and the follower of such a person is a Jain. According to this definition, therefore, the followers of Jesus Christ, the Buddha, Ramakrishna are also Jains because these great men too were the great conquerors of their internal foe. Even the words used for the five adorable ones mentioned in the navkar mantra of Jains viz. arihanta, siddha, acharya, upadhyaya and sadhu are non – sectarian. 2. Our attempts to increase and promote inter-religious understanding through seminars, publication of books and articles must be continued. 3. We must also get acquainted with the scriptures, the spiritual literature and traditions of religions other than our own in a spirit of sympathy and acceptance. 4. The need for spiritual growth with the help of one’s sadhana cannot be over-emphasized. We must see to it that the spiritual foundations of the nation do not get eroded or weakened by the onslaughts of secular and material forces. This is especially important because the disharmony and unrest, which we find today, is more due to non-religious, materialistic forces than religion. The secularists believe that religion should be abolished or at least delegated to a minor place in society, and all social problems can be solved purely on a non-religious basis. But they forget that any peace or harmony, unity or integration achieved without the religious roots would always be shallow especially in a religious country like India. Today even socialist countries have started recognizing the force of religion, and psychologists have accepted that religion is a potent means of achieving mental peace, and integration of personality. What is of prime importance today, therefore, is the living of a truly religious life. The conflict to day is not inter-religious, but between religion and irreligion, between the secular and the sacred. And the sacred cannot win unless it manifests through actual living. 5. Last but not the least, we cannot and must not neglect our duty to our fellow beings, our neighbors, the gods moving around us in the sick, the poor and the deprived. They are not strangers. None is a stranger. Everyone is our own, be he a Hindu, a Muslim or a Christian. Let us make them all our own by giving help, love, sympathy, and what little we can, irrespective of caste, creed, race or religion.
LIVING REALITIES FROM THE PARALLEL UNIVERSES
The Hindu religion brings to us the gift of tolerance that allows for different stages of worship, different and personal expressions of devotion and even different Gods to guide our life on this Earth. Yet, it is a one religion under a single divine hierarchy that sees to the harmonious working together of the three worlds. These intelligent beings have evolved through eons of time and are able to help mankind without themselves having to live in a physical body. These great Mahadevas, with their multitudes of angelic devas, live and work constantly and tirelessly for the people of our religion, protecting and guiding them, opening new doors and closing unused ones.
The Gods worshiped by the Hindu abide in the Third World, aided by the devas that inhabit the Second World.
It is in the Hindu temple that the three worlds meet and devotees invoke the Gods of our religion. The temple is built as a palace in which the Gods reside. It is the visible home of the Gods, a sacred place unlike every other place on the Earth. The Hindu must associate himself with these Gods in a very sensitive way when he approaches the temple.
Though the devotee rarely has the psychic vision of the Deity, he is aware of the God's divine presence. He is aware through feeling, through sensing the divine presence within the temple. As he approaches the sanctum sanctorum, the Hindu is fully aware that an intelligent being, greater and more evolved than himself, is there.
This God is intently aware of him, safeguarding him, fully knowing his inmost thought, fully capable of coping with any situation the devotee may mentally lay at His holy feet. It is important that we approach the Deity in this way--conscious and confident that our needs are known in the inner spiritual worlds.
The physical representation of the God, be it a stone or metal image, a yantra or other sacred form, simply marks the place that the God will manifest in or hover above in His etheric body. It can be conceived as an antenna to receive the divine rays of the God or as the material body in or through which the God manifests in this First World.
Man takes one body and then another in his progression through the cycles of birth and death and rebirth. Similarly, the Gods in their subtle bodies inhabit, for brief or protracted spans of time, these temple images. When we perform puja, a religious ritual, we are attracting the attention of the devas and Mahadevas in the inner worlds.
That is the purpose of a puja; it is a form of communication. To enhance this communication we establish an altar in the temple and in the home. This becomes charged or magnetized through our devotional thoughts and feelings, which radiate out and affect the surrounding environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
