Seek and ye shall find….

It all began when I was introduced to Sanskrit more than three decades ago. My Sanskrit text consigned my very solid world to the realm of the illusory (Maya). I could not understand or appreciate why anyone would categorize this world that I can touch, feel, see and hear as insubstantial. It seemed very solid to me. I protested very loudly and vociferously and got sent out of class for misbehavior.

The long and short of it is that, my teacher failed to explain to me the concept of Maya or illusion that is the core of Hindu belief. He either had no clue about the meaning or thought I was not ready for the meanings encapsulated in the words. Decades later, here I am still grappling with the concepts referenced in my Sanskrit classes and still struggling to make some sense of them for myself.

Over the years I discovered that there are many more terms that are never clearly and unambiguously explained to the Hindu as part of his religious upbringing. Why is that?

Hinduism is not really a religion in the sense that Christianity or Islam is. It is a democratic, fluid set up that looks upon the atheist, the agnostic and the believer with unfazed indifference. Belief is a very personal thing and no one has the right to dictate the terms of belief. Those who seek will find the meanings and the path. So, the seekers have learnt the meanings and travelled the path to realization. Non-seekers have heard the echoes and have remained forever uncaring or enthusiastically unbelieving.

Is it a good or bad thing? Ask a “Hindu” and you will get the reply— “There is nothing good or bad. It is their Karma. They will seek if they are destined to”.

Karma and free will

If that is so, what is Karma? Karma is the universal law of cause and effect. What you sow, you will reap. Interestingly, the belief is that, the effect of the action in one lifetime may be spread over multiple lifetimes. If you were a strong non-believer in one lifetime, you may continue to carry that trait with you over multiple lifetimes. Stories of Hiranyakashipu and Hiranyakasha; Kansa and Sisupala are put forth as examples of people who carried the same trait of enmity to God over multiple lifetimes. They had to live and die with that trait till they learnt to overcome it and merge with the divine.

Hmm...I can hear you asking me…Did they finally merge with the divine? Their merger with the divine was either…not an interesting story or they were probably born as one of the saints we hear so much about!

Citing examples from our own life, Karma is defined as the result of our own actions. If, for instance, you intentionally deprived someone of their eyesight in some lifetime, you may have to spend one or more lifetimes as a blind person. You need to realize that blindness is a painful state and no one should be subject to that experience. Your suffering should make you learn the lesson—intentionally blinding someone is not good karma... It may make you passionate about researching on or curing blindness---and that may be your ticket out of this specific karmic vortex!

But, how do you know the blindness in the current lifetime is the result of your action in some past life time? The reality is, you cannot know unless you are a trikaladarshi (a person who knows the past, present and future). If you are not, you must have enough faith to accept it and try to learn your lesson. Once you have learnt your lesson, the cycle will be broken and the effect will fade into insignificance. You may enjoy other lifetimes sans the crippling blindness.

You may ask: “Hmm…while there is a positivity to the concept, there is very little stress on agency (free will)?”

“Free will” is paramount in the concept of Karma. You can change your fate by deliberately and efficiently setting out to negate the effects of Karma. Your suffering and the cause of it are visible realities in your life. As a first step, you have to accept the “effect” of past karma as a reality in your life. Next you must find ways and means of negating the impact of that Karma in this lifetime or in future lifetimes. Your “free will” can determine how you live out this life and what you will be born with in the next lifetime.

Here again, Hinduism is not prescriptive. You can reduce physical suffering and earn brownie points in the karmic cycle by using your body for the service of others (paropakarartham idam shareeram—my body is for the service of others). Alternately, you can erase the cycle of Karma itself, by realizing that this world is an illusion and you are that Brahman—the creator who has become the created.

The Creator and the Created

Anything that is created exists in dualism. This is because, the process of creation itself creates a duality. “That which is not” (Sathya –true reality)—the unmanifest reality-- becomes “that which is” visible to the senses (Mithya-Maya—illusion)—the manifest form and therefore by contrast can be juxtaposed; compared. Since “that which is not” exists alongside or rather pervades “that which is”, it is possible to tear the veil of the manifested illusion using a number of tools discussed in the Upanishads and merge in the true reality.

But how?

Upanishadic texts and the Bhagavad Gita inform us that we need to understand that the body is an object in this duality. It is not our real self. The real self is Brahman--a witness to the antics of the body, untouched by causes or effects; unchanged by time; immutable. To distinguish between the real and unreal; the true and untrue; the uncreated and created, you need to first understand the nature of the body and the self.

How can we experience the body as an object of duality and distinguish it from the real self?

The body is a creation. It is created by past Karma. (for those who are tempted to ask—what is the karma that created the first body—I would point out that it is clearly stated in the spiritual

literature of the world—the will of God. Subsequent bodies were created by the karma (actions) of the individual manifestation).

My understanding is that; Karma or action creates a vortex of directional energy. Multiple karmic vortexes (Sanchita Karma or collected Karma) may be generated sequentially (note—I do not say simultaneously here because simultaneous generation of lifetimes or multiverses is a little too much for me to grasp at the moment) to create a lifetime. One or more of these vortexes (prarabda karma) may powerfully shape and place a body in an appropriate environment. The body so created will carry with it the dominant impulses or vasanas that initiated the karmic vortex. The purpose of that karmic body is to understand the specific vasana and reduce; erase its power. Those who succeed will be able to erase/ reduce/ negate that specific karmic energy. Those who fail will add energy to the karmic vortex (agami karma) and will have to repeat the lesson. All Karmic vortexes can be negated over multiple lifetimes and the cycle of birth and death can be broken.

However, this is a hard and long path, but not the only one. You have the choice to break ALL Karmic vortexes in this lifetime itself. Texts like Aparokshanubhuti, Vivekachudamani, Panchadasi and so on tell you how you can distinguish between the body and the self. These texts gently lead you from a definition of the characteristics of the gross body to delineations of the subtle body, and repeat themselves seemingly, endlessly till you can truly grasp their meaning and work towards making the distinctions. Once this distinction is made, the body and the world will be seen to be the illusion (Maya) it is stated to be.

Conclusion

The journey from hearing to understanding has been long and hard. I can still see the path stretching interminably before me, fading into the grey distance into a pinpoint. The echoes continue to harass. But, now I know the answers exist and I have to seek to find them…I have become a seeker!

Yes, Lord God, Should I Believe?

Image created by Bing Image Generator on 26/03/24

As a little girl, I was fascinated by a picture my Grandmother kept on her desk. It was a mesmerizing, awe-inspiring depiction of a storm at sea. Huge waves, threateningly hovered eternally over a tiny craft struggling to keep upright. The picture was so sharp and detailed that one could see the sinews of the sailors as they struggled with the ropes and oars! At the top right corner of the picture was a superscription “Yes, Lord God, I believe!”  Grandma told me, that to her, the picture, represented the sum total of human experience.  I looked at her curiously.  She smilingly pointed to the threatening waves and said “Look at these waves.  They are threatening, intimidating and frightening.  Death and destruction seem guaranteed. In the face of this threat, there are those who believe that an unconditional surrender to God alone can save them. They say loudly and clearly from the depth of their being ‘Yes, Lord God, I believe!’. They are confident that their faith will save them.  That is the path of religion.”  She then touched the portrayal of the struggling sailors and said “Look at the sailors. They have an immense belief in their own skills. They are drawing upon every bit of strength and skill they have.  They are entirely focused on getting themselves out of the crisis with the skills they have acquired.  That is the path of Science. Now step away from the picture and look at the composition as a whole. You will see the middle path. The sailors rely on their skills and do their best in the crisis, yet they believe in God. The combination of skill and grace is what will get them out of the situation!”

Hmm… I could see what Grandma meant.  I wondered how I would have reacted in a similar situation.  Perhaps I would have taken the middle path. One cannot sit idle and believe in a God one has never actually seen or experienced unequivocally, while life was under threat?  The instinct for survival and the rush of adrenaline would surely drive me to action? But, then the punishing strength of the wave would demand that I draw upon sources of power greater than myself!  I would certainly hope that there is a supreme intelligence which would intervene on behalf of my puny self!

Should we seek the wise counsel of Science?

            Growing up in a world that worshiped at the feet of science and technology, God was not a term one bandied about freely.  I was uneasily made aware that the world of rationalism and scientific temperament would frown upon, and perhaps strongly condemn, belief in any being whose existence was not repeatedly proven and objectively demonstrated beyond doubt.  Lack of explanations for natural phenomena or personal experience of miracles, would not be considered proof enough.  The scientifically-minded would laugh and say “Science may not have all the answers to what you call miracles, today. Someday, it will have those answers.  What you call miracles or gaps in scientific reasoning will be closed with objective and demonstrable explanations.  Science will be able to close the gaps in the “God of the Gaps” argument that are being advanced.  How can anyone risk life on a belief in a being whose very existence is in doubt?”

            Unfortunately, I found myself retreating from such arguments shaken and unsure.  “Was life just an accident? Is there no ordering intelligence that engineered this universe?”  Deep within me was a fount of dissatisfaction at the explanations offered by the Scientists.  My existential experience informed me that there was a consciousness and an awareness that distinguished me from the unthinking, sense-driven existence that seemingly characterized the plant and animal kingdom. “Surely, my awareness of existence had some meaning? That cannot be an accident!” 

The hard problem of consciousness

            Searching for answers to this extremely subjective and emotional response to the unsettling facts presented by science, I was surprised to find that scientists too had come up against this wall and were desperately trying to climb over/ walk through and find the necessary explanations for what they called “the hard problem of consciousness”. I gleefully joined the melee and read all the papers; watched all the debates and discussions on YouTube, that engaged, nay riveted the attention, of the hardened scientific community.  

Let me pause here, to warn you that if you join the melee, you are in for a merry ride down the proverbial rabbit hole!  Scientists and philosophers have entered the arena and are having a pitched battle out there.  That is not to say, that I did not enjoy the ride!

            Following the principle of KISS (Keep it simple stupid), I will try to reduce the discourses to the bare essentials for our understanding.  The “hard problem of consciousness’ is the gap that scientists experience when they try to resolve the “easy problems of consciousness”.  In other words, any ‘sentient experience’, that cannot be explained by a study of the functions of the neural pathways and brain (physical mechanisms), can be defined as the ‘hard problem of consciousness’.  If you experience fear, the adrenaline pumping into your system will force you to run from the object of fear.  That is a physical response-the easy problem of consciousness. You can report it, study the physical impact of it and even identify the triggers etc., If you ignore the bodily reaction (the adrenaline coursing through your bloodstream) and decide to undergo the suffering for the sake of a principle you hold dear, there is no physical explanation to the reaction.  You can report it. But you cannot study the physical cause of the reaction. Ignore the verbal reports and there is nothing to study.  That is the hard problem of consciousness.  Mother Theresa’s altruism in the face of the immense sacrifices she had to make is a classic example of the ‘hard problem of consciousness’!

Can religion explain this phenomena?

            Religion does not spend any time on analyzing the hard or easy problem of consciousness. They accept that consciousness exists and it is fundamental to our understanding of the world.  They are more concerned with the actions and reactions that are generated by the existence of awareness. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato and their ilk in the West and Vishwamitra, Vashishta and scores of others in the East, bent their minds to an analysis of fundamental questions that arose by virtue of the existence of ‘consciousness’. 

            The Western philosophers observed that sentient beings received inputs of the objective world through the medium of the senses. However, conscious (note the distinction between sentient and conscious) beings processed the inputs so received in ways in which other sentient beings did not. They related the object received as input with other similar objects and brought analytical acumen to dissect and ruminate on the physical object.  They concluded that awareness can be enhanced; new understandings gained and fine-tuned by actually dissecting, analyzing and studying the object of the sensory input.   Scientific thinking emerged as they pushed the boundaries of human understanding into the objective world.

            Eastern philosophers were convinced that consciousness is all there is. The world ceases to exist the moment we are unconscious or in deep sleep. Hence, the world emerges from our consciousness and therefore, the world out there, is an illusion created by our consciousness. While the illusion is valid, it is not real. In order to understand the world, one must understand the consciousness and its operations. They went within in an effort to understand this phenomenon and came up with a number of ways in which one can arrive at an understanding of the nature of this unique human experience. Yoga, meditation and a score of religious beliefs emerged as they dug deep into subjective experience. 

Are we any wiser?

                Has all the discussion above made us any wiser?  Should we go with science and assert that God is a “crutch for the weak to hold on at times of distress” or go with religion and affirm “God is the rock on which we must build our homes”? Or should we take the middle path and say with the majority “I hope there is God and I hope he/she will offer succor if I am in trouble! But, I must learn to rely on myself and my skills too!”  I do not think I am (for that matter anyone is) in the position to take a inflexible stand at this point in the history of man’s evolution. Most of us would, probably select the middle path.  Truly, it is not material whether you or I believe in the “God-of-religion(s)” or the “fact(s)-of-science”.  It is more material to keep an open mind and discover for ourselves, the true nature of our experiential self.  How we go about is it, is our business.