Sharon Maas's Blog, page 7
January 4, 2012
This blog has been mentioned twice recently in other blog...
This blog has been mentioned twice recently in other blogs: thanks to Western Hindu and The Accidental Hindu!
The latter blog featured my personal journey towards the writing of Sons of Gods, so if you are interested in me as author you can go there and read.
The latter blog featured my personal journey towards the writing of Sons of Gods, so if you are interested in me as author you can go there and read.
January 1, 2012
A Very Happy New Year...
...to readers of this blog.
I really can't put it any better than the Gayatri Mantra; revered by both Buddhists and Hindus worldwide, it's considered to be a supreme vehicle for gaining spiritual understanding.
Om Bhur Bhuvah Swah, Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi, Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
ॐ भूर्भुव: स्व: तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं । भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि, धीयो यो न: प्रचोदयात् ।।
A basic translation is given as...
Oh God, the Protector, the basis of all life, Who is self-existent, Who is free from all pains and Whose contact frees the soul from all troubles, Who pervades the Universe and sustains all, the Creator and Energizer of the whole Universe, the Giver of happiness, Who is worthy of acceptance, the most excellent, Who is Pure and the Purifier of all, let us embrace that very God, so that He may direct our mental faculties in the right direction.
For a more detailed interpreteation, see Eaglespace.
There, too, you will see a more explicit description of That Which Cannot be Described or Explained, ie the G-word as mentioned in my last post.
Here is a video of the Gayatri Mantra as chanted.
Simply beautiful. A fine beginning
to the New Year.
It is a morning mantra, repeated preferably to the rising sun, and so well in keeping with the prologue to Sons of Gods, when Surya the Sungod appears to Kunti
Which, incidentally, is launched today.
I really can't put it any better than the Gayatri Mantra; revered by both Buddhists and Hindus worldwide, it's considered to be a supreme vehicle for gaining spiritual understanding.
Om Bhur Bhuvah Swah, Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi, Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
ॐ भूर्भुव: स्व: तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं । भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि, धीयो यो न: प्रचोदयात् ।।
A basic translation is given as...
Oh God, the Protector, the basis of all life, Who is self-existent, Who is free from all pains and Whose contact frees the soul from all troubles, Who pervades the Universe and sustains all, the Creator and Energizer of the whole Universe, the Giver of happiness, Who is worthy of acceptance, the most excellent, Who is Pure and the Purifier of all, let us embrace that very God, so that He may direct our mental faculties in the right direction.
For a more detailed interpreteation, see Eaglespace.
There, too, you will see a more explicit description of That Which Cannot be Described or Explained, ie the G-word as mentioned in my last post.
Here is a video of the Gayatri Mantra as chanted.
Simply beautiful. A fine beginning
to the New Year.
It is a morning mantra, repeated preferably to the rising sun, and so well in keeping with the prologue to Sons of Gods, when Surya the Sungod appears to Kunti
Which, incidentally, is launched today.
A Very Happy New Yearto readers of this blog.I really can...
A Very Happy New Year
to readers of this blog.
I really can't put it any better than the Gayatri Mantra; revered by both Buddhists and Hindus worldwide, it's considered to be a supreme vehicle for gaining spiritual understanding.
Om Bhur Bhuvah Swah, Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi, Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
ॐ भूर्भुव: स्व: तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं । भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि, धीयो यो न: प्रचोदयात् ।।
A basic translation is given as...
Oh God, the Protector, the basis of all life, Who is self-existent, Who is free from all pains and Whose contact frees the soul from all troubles, Who pervades the Universe and sustains all, the Creator and Energizer of the whole Universe, the Giver of happiness, Who is worthy of acceptance, the most excellent, Who is Pure and the Purifier of all, let us embrace that very God, so that He may direct our mental faculties in the right direction.
For a more detailed interpreteation, see Eaglespace.
There, too, you will see a more explicit description of That Which Cannot be Described or Explained, ie the G-word as mentioned in my last post.
Here is a video of the Gayatri Mantra as chanted.
Simply beautiful. A fine beginning
to the New Year.
It is a morning mantra, repeated preferably to the rising sun, and so well in keeping with the prologue to Sons of Gods, when Surya the Sungod appears to Kunti
Which, incidentally, is launched today.
to readers of this blog.
I really can't put it any better than the Gayatri Mantra; revered by both Buddhists and Hindus worldwide, it's considered to be a supreme vehicle for gaining spiritual understanding.
Om Bhur Bhuvah Swah, Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi, Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat
ॐ भूर्भुव: स्व: तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं । भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि, धीयो यो न: प्रचोदयात् ।।
A basic translation is given as...
Oh God, the Protector, the basis of all life, Who is self-existent, Who is free from all pains and Whose contact frees the soul from all troubles, Who pervades the Universe and sustains all, the Creator and Energizer of the whole Universe, the Giver of happiness, Who is worthy of acceptance, the most excellent, Who is Pure and the Purifier of all, let us embrace that very God, so that He may direct our mental faculties in the right direction.
For a more detailed interpreteation, see Eaglespace.
There, too, you will see a more explicit description of That Which Cannot be Described or Explained, ie the G-word as mentioned in my last post.
Here is a video of the Gayatri Mantra as chanted.
Simply beautiful. A fine beginning
to the New Year.
It is a morning mantra, repeated preferably to the rising sun, and so well in keeping with the prologue to Sons of Gods, when Surya the Sungod appears to Kunti
Which, incidentally, is launched today.
December 29, 2011
Should Atheists shun the Mahabharata?
Definitely. As far as irrational religious fairy-tales are concerned, the Mahabharata out-fantasizes the Bible by legions. Lord Vishnu lying on an Ocean of Milk with God Brahma sitting on a lotus growing out of his navel? Check. Magic beings who can change shape at will? Check. Superheroes who ascend to heaven in silver chariots and gain command over superweapons more deadly than the atom bomb? Check. It's all in there. If this is the book Hindus hold most dear then obviously, any self-respecting atheist should shun it; or at the very least, read it only to mock.
As someone who has lived, moved and breathed in this religion for almost 40 years, I'm often frustrated by the clichés and presumptions with which many Westerners—atheists and non-atheists alike—tend to summarise and dismiss Hinduism -- or rather, as I prefer to call it, the Sanatana Dharma. Ask the average Westerner for a word association, and you'll get trite answers such as "caste system" and "holy cow" and "millions of four armed gods." And indeed, the Mahabharata is generously endowed with all of these "typical" Hindu accessories, so that a summary dismissal of the whole vast epic as humbug might be forgiven.
On the other hand…
What about reading it the way a Hindu does? Simply plunging into it as into an exciting fantasy world, taking with you a generous pinch of salt, and willingly checking in your disbelief at the first page, as you would a Harry Potter novel or view a Star Wars movie? A Hindu would never wag a finger at you for your blasphemy; she'd smile and invite you to come closer.
See, in order to understand this book one really needs the mentality of a Hindu. No worries; it's not catching. To think like a Hindu you need a totally different kind of logic. One tenet of Western rationality is that if A is A it cannot also be B. Logical, right? The Hindu says, not so. A can be A and B as well, and for that matter also C. A thing can be true and untrue at the same time. Yes, the Mahabharata is true – but also, on another level, from a different perspective, it isn't. There was once a great war – but also, there wasn't. These gods exist – but also they don't. If you want to believe it is literally true, then you're welcome; but if you don't, that's cool too. If you believe it, then it's obviously because you need to believe it, and that belief is your path; and the only thing that matters, really, is your path: the path of growing ever closer to the inherent goodness and beauty of your own true being, which is divine.
In other words, Hinduism is not one fixed set of beliefs that everyone must adhere to. It is many concepts for many people; from the most concrete faith in millions of gods and goddesses who can and do interact with us humans on a literal level, to the most abstract knowledge that nothing exists. Nothing at all. That this whole physical universe is but an illusion; that the only reality is Consciousness, and we are simply dreams upon that Consciousness. You can find such abstract notions written in ancient Sanskrit texts such as Yoga Vasishta Sara and the Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
This all-embracing attitude that includes every spectrum of human understanding and mentality, from the simple worship of stone idols to the abstract thoughtless Void, is neatly summed up by the following definition of what is a Hindu, formulated by the Supreme Court of India:
"In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus and non-Hindus – whatever creed and worship practices suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange Gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable. The core religion does not even depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one God or many. Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Hinduism is, then, both a civilisation and conglomerate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organisation."
That definition might seem too New-Age, too wishy-washy for some. Don't Hindus know what they believe? Is a Hindu just some sort of any-and-everything-goes hippy with a mind so open it's like a sponge, more holes than substance, sucking up every hare-brained idea under the sun?
Not at all. Most Hindus will have his or her "path", which he or she will follow with dedication and sincerity. I, for instance, am an Advaitist, and have been for the last 40 years; it's one of the most exacting and precise teachings of them all, one that considers Brahman, the spiritual essence underlying all reality, as the only reality; that all gods and the world itself are only aspects of Brahman, appearances within that one reality, consciousness which is one, limitless, impersonal, indefinable, without qualities, eternal, unchanging, inactive; that an ultimate unity exists in the multiplicity of gods, religions, cultures and indeed all life.
At the same time I can read and enjoy and believe and even rewrite the Mahabharata, an epic full of gods and demons and supernatural events and outlandish curses. I can go to a Catholic service on Christmas morning and sing as heartily as any of the faithful. I will visit a Buddhist or a Sikh temple and take part in the ceremonies there – without ever losing touch with my own individual practice.
And I really, really avoid religion discussions with (most) atheists. Because all too often religion, all religion, is dismissed by atheists without any further consideration; as if we are all of the same ilk, all of the same backward frame of mind, all believing in a set of rubbish that needs to be swept out. It's only a matter of time, in any internet discussion on religion, before some atheist scoffingly chimes in with "fairy-in-the-sky" or "flying-spaghetti-monster". It's an "either you're an atheist or you're an illogical idiot believing in Santa Claus in the clouds" mentality that leaves me voiceless. Huffington Post blogger Philip Goldberg spoke up for me (and others like me) back in October 2010 in his call for a "sane spirituality", repudiating the false atheist stand that there are only two sides in the religious debate: conservative Bible-thumpers and radical anti-religionists. The real voiceless ones belong to neither of those two camps, says Goldberg; and there are a whole lot of them. They are a diverse, unorganized mish-mash of open-minded seekers that tends to approach spirituality in a reasonable, rational and pragmatic manner: they are spiritual but not religious (SBNR). "Many practice methodologies derived from ancient traditions born in India, which we've come to call Hinduism and Buddhism, although very few Western practitioners call themselves Hindus or Buddhists."
In that group Goldberg includes people with secular world views, who view practices such as meditation as the applied components of a science of consciousness, or simply as ways to enhance well-being. Last but not least, the voiceless include many people who appear to be conventionally religious, in that they attend worship services, celebrate religious holidays and teach their children about their religious heritage, but on their own terms. They don't believe everything that staunch atheists assume they believe, neither do they accept all religious dogma as revealed truth. If they do value scripture, says Goldberg, they do so selectively and read it metaphorically, not as history or as an infallible guide to morality.
"The sanely spiritual," he says, "think logically and accept the testimony of science. Their likely answer to the query 'Do you believe in God?' is, 'It depends on what you mean by that term.' They're wary of the G-word because it's come to be associated with belief in an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky, whereas they're more inclined to postulate a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar. In short, they are rational, reasonable individuals who regard the spiritual dimension of life as a central feature of human development and pursue it in the spirit of good old American pragmatism. They do what works, placing direct experience and observation over ideology or doctrine. To the degree that they have faith in something, it is the kind of faith that proceeds from evidence and reason, like a scientist's faith in the outcome of an experiment."
That is exactly my position. And out of that position I was able to re-create one of the most insanely preposterous stories any religion has ever produced; I am able to love and respect and learn from that story because its deepest meaning lies between the words; not in the events described themselves, but in their effect on the reader. And that is why I invite, no, challenge, atheists to read the Mahabharata.
My version, of course: Sons of Gods. Give it a try.
Coming soon: Should Christians Shun the Mahabharata?
As someone who has lived, moved and breathed in this religion for almost 40 years, I'm often frustrated by the clichés and presumptions with which many Westerners—atheists and non-atheists alike—tend to summarise and dismiss Hinduism -- or rather, as I prefer to call it, the Sanatana Dharma. Ask the average Westerner for a word association, and you'll get trite answers such as "caste system" and "holy cow" and "millions of four armed gods." And indeed, the Mahabharata is generously endowed with all of these "typical" Hindu accessories, so that a summary dismissal of the whole vast epic as humbug might be forgiven.
On the other hand…
What about reading it the way a Hindu does? Simply plunging into it as into an exciting fantasy world, taking with you a generous pinch of salt, and willingly checking in your disbelief at the first page, as you would a Harry Potter novel or view a Star Wars movie? A Hindu would never wag a finger at you for your blasphemy; she'd smile and invite you to come closer.
See, in order to understand this book one really needs the mentality of a Hindu. No worries; it's not catching. To think like a Hindu you need a totally different kind of logic. One tenet of Western rationality is that if A is A it cannot also be B. Logical, right? The Hindu says, not so. A can be A and B as well, and for that matter also C. A thing can be true and untrue at the same time. Yes, the Mahabharata is true – but also, on another level, from a different perspective, it isn't. There was once a great war – but also, there wasn't. These gods exist – but also they don't. If you want to believe it is literally true, then you're welcome; but if you don't, that's cool too. If you believe it, then it's obviously because you need to believe it, and that belief is your path; and the only thing that matters, really, is your path: the path of growing ever closer to the inherent goodness and beauty of your own true being, which is divine.
In other words, Hinduism is not one fixed set of beliefs that everyone must adhere to. It is many concepts for many people; from the most concrete faith in millions of gods and goddesses who can and do interact with us humans on a literal level, to the most abstract knowledge that nothing exists. Nothing at all. That this whole physical universe is but an illusion; that the only reality is Consciousness, and we are simply dreams upon that Consciousness. You can find such abstract notions written in ancient Sanskrit texts such as Yoga Vasishta Sara and the Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
This all-embracing attitude that includes every spectrum of human understanding and mentality, from the simple worship of stone idols to the abstract thoughtless Void, is neatly summed up by the following definition of what is a Hindu, formulated by the Supreme Court of India:
"In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus and non-Hindus – whatever creed and worship practices suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange Gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable. The core religion does not even depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one God or many. Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Hinduism is, then, both a civilisation and conglomerate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organisation."
That definition might seem too New-Age, too wishy-washy for some. Don't Hindus know what they believe? Is a Hindu just some sort of any-and-everything-goes hippy with a mind so open it's like a sponge, more holes than substance, sucking up every hare-brained idea under the sun?
Not at all. Most Hindus will have his or her "path", which he or she will follow with dedication and sincerity. I, for instance, am an Advaitist, and have been for the last 40 years; it's one of the most exacting and precise teachings of them all, one that considers Brahman, the spiritual essence underlying all reality, as the only reality; that all gods and the world itself are only aspects of Brahman, appearances within that one reality, consciousness which is one, limitless, impersonal, indefinable, without qualities, eternal, unchanging, inactive; that an ultimate unity exists in the multiplicity of gods, religions, cultures and indeed all life.
At the same time I can read and enjoy and believe and even rewrite the Mahabharata, an epic full of gods and demons and supernatural events and outlandish curses. I can go to a Catholic service on Christmas morning and sing as heartily as any of the faithful. I will visit a Buddhist or a Sikh temple and take part in the ceremonies there – without ever losing touch with my own individual practice.
And I really, really avoid religion discussions with (most) atheists. Because all too often religion, all religion, is dismissed by atheists without any further consideration; as if we are all of the same ilk, all of the same backward frame of mind, all believing in a set of rubbish that needs to be swept out. It's only a matter of time, in any internet discussion on religion, before some atheist scoffingly chimes in with "fairy-in-the-sky" or "flying-spaghetti-monster". It's an "either you're an atheist or you're an illogical idiot believing in Santa Claus in the clouds" mentality that leaves me voiceless. Huffington Post blogger Philip Goldberg spoke up for me (and others like me) back in October 2010 in his call for a "sane spirituality", repudiating the false atheist stand that there are only two sides in the religious debate: conservative Bible-thumpers and radical anti-religionists. The real voiceless ones belong to neither of those two camps, says Goldberg; and there are a whole lot of them. They are a diverse, unorganized mish-mash of open-minded seekers that tends to approach spirituality in a reasonable, rational and pragmatic manner: they are spiritual but not religious (SBNR). "Many practice methodologies derived from ancient traditions born in India, which we've come to call Hinduism and Buddhism, although very few Western practitioners call themselves Hindus or Buddhists."
In that group Goldberg includes people with secular world views, who view practices such as meditation as the applied components of a science of consciousness, or simply as ways to enhance well-being. Last but not least, the voiceless include many people who appear to be conventionally religious, in that they attend worship services, celebrate religious holidays and teach their children about their religious heritage, but on their own terms. They don't believe everything that staunch atheists assume they believe, neither do they accept all religious dogma as revealed truth. If they do value scripture, says Goldberg, they do so selectively and read it metaphorically, not as history or as an infallible guide to morality.
"The sanely spiritual," he says, "think logically and accept the testimony of science. Their likely answer to the query 'Do you believe in God?' is, 'It depends on what you mean by that term.' They're wary of the G-word because it's come to be associated with belief in an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky, whereas they're more inclined to postulate a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar. In short, they are rational, reasonable individuals who regard the spiritual dimension of life as a central feature of human development and pursue it in the spirit of good old American pragmatism. They do what works, placing direct experience and observation over ideology or doctrine. To the degree that they have faith in something, it is the kind of faith that proceeds from evidence and reason, like a scientist's faith in the outcome of an experiment."
That is exactly my position. And out of that position I was able to re-create one of the most insanely preposterous stories any religion has ever produced; I am able to love and respect and learn from that story because its deepest meaning lies between the words; not in the events described themselves, but in their effect on the reader. And that is why I invite, no, challenge, atheists to read the Mahabharata.
My version, of course: Sons of Gods. Give it a try.
Coming soon: Should Christians Shun the Mahabharata?
Should Atheists shun the Mahabharata?Definitely. As far a...
Should Atheists shun the Mahabharata?
Definitely. As far as irrational religious fairy-tales are concerned, the Mahabharata out-fantasizes the Bible by legions. Lord Vishnu lying on an Ocean of Milk with God Brahma sitting on a lotus growing out of his navel? Check. Magic beings who can change shape at will? Check. Superheroes who ascend to heaven in silver chariots and gain command over superweapons more deadly than the atom bomb? Check. It's all in there. If this is the book Hindus hold most dear then obviously, any self-respecting atheist should shun it; or at the very least, read it only to mock.
As someone who has lived, moved and breathed in this religion for almost 40 years, I'm often frustrated by the clichés and presumptions with which many Westerners—atheists and non-atheists alike—tend to summarise and dismiss Hinduism -- or rather, as I prefer to call it, the Sanatana Dharma. Ask the average Westerner for a word association, and you'll get trite answers such as "caste system" and "holy cow" and "millions of four armed gods." And indeed, the Mahabharata is generously endowed with all of these "typical" Hindu accessories, so that a summary dismissal of the whole vast epic as humbug might be forgiven.
On the other hand…
What about reading it the way a Hindu does? Simply plunging into it as into an exciting fantasy world, taking with you a generous pinch of salt, and willingly checking in your disbelief at the first page, as you would a Harry Potter novel or view a Star Wars movie? A Hindu would never wag a finger at you for your blasphemy; she'd smile and invite you to come closer.
See, in order to understand this book one really needs the mentality of a Hindu. No worries; it's not catching. To think like a Hindu you need a totally different kind of logic. One tenet of Western rationality is that if A is A it cannot also be B. Logical, right? The Hindu says, not so. A can be A and B as well, and for that matter also C. A thing can be true and untrue at the same time. Yes, the Mahabharata is true – but also, on another level, from a different perspective, it isn't. There was once a great war – but also, there wasn't. These gods exist – but also they don't. If you want to believe it is literally true, then you're welcome; but if you don't, that's cool too. If you believe it, then it's obviously because you need to believe it, and that belief is your path; and the only thing that matters, really, is your path: the path that brings you closer to your own being, which is divine.
In other words, Hinduism is not one fixed set of beliefs that everyone must adhere to. It is many concepts for many people; from the most concrete faith in millions of gods and goddesses who can and do interact with us humans on a literal level, to the most abstract knowledge that nothing exists. Nothing at all. That this whole physical universe is but an illusion; that the only reality is Consciousness, and we are simply dreams upon that Consciousness. You can find such abstract notions written in ancient Sanskrit texts such as Yoga Vasishta Sara and the Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
This all-embracing attitude that includes every spectrum of human understanding and mentality, from the simple worship of stone idols to the abstract thoughtless Void, is neatly summed up by the following definition of what is a Hindu, formulated by the Supreme Court of India:
"In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus and non-Hindus – whatever creed and worship practices suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange Gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable. The core religion does not even depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one God or many. Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Hinduism is, then, both a civilisation and conglomerate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organisation."
That definition might seem too New-Age, too wishy-washy for some. Don't Hindus know what they believe? Is a Hindu just some sort of any-and-everything-goes hippy with a mind so open it's like a sponge, more holes than substance, sucking up every hare-brained idea under the sun?
Not at all. Most Hindus will have his or her "path", which he or she will follow with dedication and sincerity. I, for instance, am an Advaitist, and have been for the last 40 years; it's one of the most exacting and precise teachings of them all, one that considers Brahman, the spiritual essence underlying all reality, as the only reality; that all gods and the world itself are only aspects of Brahman, appearances within that one reality, consciousness which is one, limitless, impersonal, indefinable, without qualities, eternal, unchanging, inactive; that an ultimate unity exists in the multiplicity of gods, religions, cultures and indeed all life.
At the same time I can read and enjoy and believe and even rewrite an epic full of gods and demons and supernatural events as the Mahabharata. I can go to a Catholic service on Christmas morning and sing as heartily as any of the faithful. I will visit a Buddhist or a Sikh temple and take part in the ceremonies there – without ever losing touch with my own individual practice.
And I really, really avoid discussions with atheists. Because all too often religion, all religion, is dismissed by atheists without any further consideration; as if we are all of the same ilk, all of the same backward frame of mind, all one set of rubbish that needs to be swept out. It's an "either you're an atheist or you're an illogical idiot believing in fairies in the sky" mentality that leaves me voiceless. Huffington Post blogger Philip Goldberg spoke up for me (and others like me) back in October 2010 in his call for a "sane spirituality", repudiating the false atheist stand that there are only two sides in the religious debate: conservative Bible-thumpers and radical anti-religionists. The real voiceless ones belong to neither of those two camps, says Goldberg; and there are a whole lot of them. They are a diverse, unorganized mish-mash of open-minded seekers that tends to approach spirituality in a reasonable, rational and pragmatic manner: they are spiritual but not religious (SBNR). "Many practice methodologies derived from ancient traditions born in India, which we've come to call Hinduism and Buddhism, although very few Western practitioners call themselves Hindus or Buddhists."
In that group Goldberg includes people with secular world views, who view practices such as meditation as the applied components of a science of consciousness, or simply as ways to enhance well-being. Last but not least, the voiceless include many people who appear to be conventionally religious, in that they attend worship services, celebrate religious holidays and teach their children about their religious heritage, but on their own terms. They don't believe everything that staunch atheists assume they believe, neither do they accept all religious dogma as revealed truth. If they do value scripture, says Goldberg, they do so selectively and read it metaphorically, not as history or as an infallible guide to morality.
"The sanely spiritual," he says, "think logically and accept the testimony of science. Their likely answer to the query 'Do you believe in God?' is, 'It depends on what you mean by that term.' They're wary of the G-word because it's come to be associated with belief in an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky, whereas they're more inclined to postulate a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar. In short, they are rational, reasonable individuals who regard the spiritual dimension of life as a central feature of human development and pursue it in the spirit of good old American pragmatism. They do what works, placing direct experience and observation over ideology or doctrine. To the degree that they have faith in something, it is the kind of faith that proceeds from evidence and reason, like a scientist's faith in the outcome of an experiment."
That is exactly my position. And out of that position I was able to re-create one of the most insanely preposterous stories any religion has ever produced; I am able to love and respect and learn from that story because its deepest meaning lies between the words; not in the events described themselves, but in their effect on the reader. And that is why I invite, no, challenge, atheists to read the Mahabharata.
My version, of course.
Definitely. As far as irrational religious fairy-tales are concerned, the Mahabharata out-fantasizes the Bible by legions. Lord Vishnu lying on an Ocean of Milk with God Brahma sitting on a lotus growing out of his navel? Check. Magic beings who can change shape at will? Check. Superheroes who ascend to heaven in silver chariots and gain command over superweapons more deadly than the atom bomb? Check. It's all in there. If this is the book Hindus hold most dear then obviously, any self-respecting atheist should shun it; or at the very least, read it only to mock.
As someone who has lived, moved and breathed in this religion for almost 40 years, I'm often frustrated by the clichés and presumptions with which many Westerners—atheists and non-atheists alike—tend to summarise and dismiss Hinduism -- or rather, as I prefer to call it, the Sanatana Dharma. Ask the average Westerner for a word association, and you'll get trite answers such as "caste system" and "holy cow" and "millions of four armed gods." And indeed, the Mahabharata is generously endowed with all of these "typical" Hindu accessories, so that a summary dismissal of the whole vast epic as humbug might be forgiven.
On the other hand…
What about reading it the way a Hindu does? Simply plunging into it as into an exciting fantasy world, taking with you a generous pinch of salt, and willingly checking in your disbelief at the first page, as you would a Harry Potter novel or view a Star Wars movie? A Hindu would never wag a finger at you for your blasphemy; she'd smile and invite you to come closer.
See, in order to understand this book one really needs the mentality of a Hindu. No worries; it's not catching. To think like a Hindu you need a totally different kind of logic. One tenet of Western rationality is that if A is A it cannot also be B. Logical, right? The Hindu says, not so. A can be A and B as well, and for that matter also C. A thing can be true and untrue at the same time. Yes, the Mahabharata is true – but also, on another level, from a different perspective, it isn't. There was once a great war – but also, there wasn't. These gods exist – but also they don't. If you want to believe it is literally true, then you're welcome; but if you don't, that's cool too. If you believe it, then it's obviously because you need to believe it, and that belief is your path; and the only thing that matters, really, is your path: the path that brings you closer to your own being, which is divine.
In other words, Hinduism is not one fixed set of beliefs that everyone must adhere to. It is many concepts for many people; from the most concrete faith in millions of gods and goddesses who can and do interact with us humans on a literal level, to the most abstract knowledge that nothing exists. Nothing at all. That this whole physical universe is but an illusion; that the only reality is Consciousness, and we are simply dreams upon that Consciousness. You can find such abstract notions written in ancient Sanskrit texts such as Yoga Vasishta Sara and the Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
This all-embracing attitude that includes every spectrum of human understanding and mentality, from the simple worship of stone idols to the abstract thoughtless Void, is neatly summed up by the following definition of what is a Hindu, formulated by the Supreme Court of India:
"In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus and non-Hindus – whatever creed and worship practices suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange Gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable. The core religion does not even depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one God or many. Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Hinduism is, then, both a civilisation and conglomerate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organisation."
That definition might seem too New-Age, too wishy-washy for some. Don't Hindus know what they believe? Is a Hindu just some sort of any-and-everything-goes hippy with a mind so open it's like a sponge, more holes than substance, sucking up every hare-brained idea under the sun?
Not at all. Most Hindus will have his or her "path", which he or she will follow with dedication and sincerity. I, for instance, am an Advaitist, and have been for the last 40 years; it's one of the most exacting and precise teachings of them all, one that considers Brahman, the spiritual essence underlying all reality, as the only reality; that all gods and the world itself are only aspects of Brahman, appearances within that one reality, consciousness which is one, limitless, impersonal, indefinable, without qualities, eternal, unchanging, inactive; that an ultimate unity exists in the multiplicity of gods, religions, cultures and indeed all life.
At the same time I can read and enjoy and believe and even rewrite an epic full of gods and demons and supernatural events as the Mahabharata. I can go to a Catholic service on Christmas morning and sing as heartily as any of the faithful. I will visit a Buddhist or a Sikh temple and take part in the ceremonies there – without ever losing touch with my own individual practice.
And I really, really avoid discussions with atheists. Because all too often religion, all religion, is dismissed by atheists without any further consideration; as if we are all of the same ilk, all of the same backward frame of mind, all one set of rubbish that needs to be swept out. It's an "either you're an atheist or you're an illogical idiot believing in fairies in the sky" mentality that leaves me voiceless. Huffington Post blogger Philip Goldberg spoke up for me (and others like me) back in October 2010 in his call for a "sane spirituality", repudiating the false atheist stand that there are only two sides in the religious debate: conservative Bible-thumpers and radical anti-religionists. The real voiceless ones belong to neither of those two camps, says Goldberg; and there are a whole lot of them. They are a diverse, unorganized mish-mash of open-minded seekers that tends to approach spirituality in a reasonable, rational and pragmatic manner: they are spiritual but not religious (SBNR). "Many practice methodologies derived from ancient traditions born in India, which we've come to call Hinduism and Buddhism, although very few Western practitioners call themselves Hindus or Buddhists."
In that group Goldberg includes people with secular world views, who view practices such as meditation as the applied components of a science of consciousness, or simply as ways to enhance well-being. Last but not least, the voiceless include many people who appear to be conventionally religious, in that they attend worship services, celebrate religious holidays and teach their children about their religious heritage, but on their own terms. They don't believe everything that staunch atheists assume they believe, neither do they accept all religious dogma as revealed truth. If they do value scripture, says Goldberg, they do so selectively and read it metaphorically, not as history or as an infallible guide to morality.
"The sanely spiritual," he says, "think logically and accept the testimony of science. Their likely answer to the query 'Do you believe in God?' is, 'It depends on what you mean by that term.' They're wary of the G-word because it's come to be associated with belief in an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky, whereas they're more inclined to postulate a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar. In short, they are rational, reasonable individuals who regard the spiritual dimension of life as a central feature of human development and pursue it in the spirit of good old American pragmatism. They do what works, placing direct experience and observation over ideology or doctrine. To the degree that they have faith in something, it is the kind of faith that proceeds from evidence and reason, like a scientist's faith in the outcome of an experiment."
That is exactly my position. And out of that position I was able to re-create one of the most insanely preposterous stories any religion has ever produced; I am able to love and respect and learn from that story because its deepest meaning lies between the words; not in the events described themselves, but in their effect on the reader. And that is why I invite, no, challenge, atheists to read the Mahabharata.
My version, of course.
Should Atheists avoid the Mahabharata?Definitely. As far ...
Should Atheists avoid the Mahabharata?
Definitely. As far as irrational religious fairy-tales are concerned, the Mahabharata out-fantasizes the Bible by legions. Vishnu lying on an Ocean of Milk with Brahma sitting on a lotus growing out of his navel? Check. Magic beings who can change shape at will? Check. Superheroes who ascend to heaven in silver chariots and gain command over superweapons more deadly than the atom bomb? Check. It's all in there. If this is the book Hindus hold most dear then obviously, any self-respecting atheist should shun it; or at the very least, read it only to mock.
As someone who has lived, moved and breathed in this religion for almost 40 years, I'm often frustrated by the clichés and presumptions with which many Westerners—atheists and non-atheists alike—tend to summarise and dismiss Hinduism -- or rather, as I prefer to call it, the Sanatana Dharma. Ask the average Westerner for a word association, and you'll get trite answers such as "caste system" and "holy cow" and "millions of four armed gods." And indeed, the Mahabharata is generously endowed with all of these "typical" Hindu accessories, so that a summary dismissal of the whole vast epic as humbug might be forgiven.
On the other hand…
What about reading it the way a Hindu does? Simply plunging into it as into an exciting fantasy world, taking with you a generous pinch of salt, and willingly checking in your disbelief at the first page, as you would a Harry Potter novel or view a Star Wars movie? A Hindu would never wag a finger at you for your blasphemy; she'd smile and invite you to come closer.
See, in order to understand this book one really needs the mentality of a Hindu. No worries; it's not catching. To think like a Hindu you need a totally different kind of logic. One tenet of Western rationality is that if A is A it cannot also be B. Logical, right? The Hindu says, not so. A can be A and B as well, and for that matter also C. A thing can be true and untrue at the same time. Yes, the Mahabharata is true – but only in a symbolic sense. There was once a great war – but also, there wasn't. These gods exist – but also they don't. If you want to believe it is literally true, then you're welcome; but you don't have to. If you believe that, then it's because you need to believe it, and that belief is your path; and the only thing that matters, really, is your path.
In other words, Hinduism is not one fixed set of beliefs that everyone must adhere to. It is many concepts for many people; from the most concrete faith in millions of gods and goddesses who can and do interact with us humans on a literal level, to the most abstract knowledge that nothing exists. Nothing at all. That this whole physical universe is but an illusion; that the only reality is Consciousness, and we are simply dreams upon that Consciousness. You can find such abstract notions written in ancient Sanskrit texts such as Yoga Vasishta Sara and the Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
This all-embracing attitude that includes every spectrum of human understanding and mentality, from the simple worship of stone idols to the abstract thoughtless Void, is neatly summed up by the following definition of what is a Hindu, formulated by the Supreme Court of India:
"In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus and non-Hindus – whatever creed and worship practices suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange Gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable. The core religion does not even depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one God or many. Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Hinduism is, then, both a civilisation and conglomerate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organisation."
That definition might seem too New-Age, too wishy-washy for some. Don't Hindus know what they believe? Is a Hindu just some sort of any-and-everything-goes hippy with a mind so open it's like a sponge, more holes than substance, sucking up every hare-brained idea under the sun?
Not at all. Most Hindus will have his or her "path", which he or she will follow with dedication and sincerity. I, for instance, am an Advaitist, and have been for the last 40 years; it's one of the most exacting and precise teachings of them all, one that considers Brahman, the spiritual essence underlying all reality, as the only reality; that all gods and the world itself are only aspects of Brahman, appearances within that one reality, consciousness which is one, limitless, impersonal, indefinable, without qualities, eternal, unchanging, inactive (complete in itself thus no need to act); that an ultimate unity exists in the multiplicity of gods, religions, cultures and indeed all life.
At the same time I can read and enjoy and believe and even rewrite an epic full of gods and demons and supernatural events as the Mahabharata. I can go to a Catholic service on Christmas morning and sing as heartily as any of the faithful. I will visit a Buddhist or a Sikh temple and take part in the ceremonies there – without ever losing touch with my own individual practice.
And I really, really avoid discussions with atheists. Because all too often religion, all religion, is dismissed by atheists without any further consideration; as if we are all of the same ilk, all of the same backward frame of mind, all one set of rubbish that needs to be swept out. It's an "either you're an atheist or you're an illogical idiot believing in fairies in the sky" mentality that leaves me voiceless. Huffington Post blogger Philip Goldberg spoke up for me (and others like me) back in October 2010 in his call for a "sane spirituality", repudiating the false atheist stand that there are only two sides in the religious debate: conservative Bible-thumpers and radical anti-religionists. The real voiceless ones belong to neither of those two camps, says Goldberg; and there are a whole lot of them. They are a diverse, unorganized mish-mash of open-minded seekers that tends to approach spirituality in a reasonable, rational and pragmatic manner: they are spiritual but not religious (SBNR). "Many practice methodologies derived from ancient traditions born in India, which we've come to call Hinduism and Buddhism, although very few Western practitioners call themselves Hindus or Buddhists."
The group include people with secular world views, who view practices such as meditation as the applied components of a science of consciousness, or simply as ways to enhance well-being. Last but not least, the voiceless include many people who appear to be conventionally religious, in that they attend worship services, celebrate religious holidays and teach their children about their religious heritage, but on their own terms. They don't believe everything that staunch atheists assume they believe, neither do they accept all religious dogma as revealed truth. If they do value scripture, they do so selectively and read it metaphorically, not as history or as an infallible guide to morality.
"The sanely spiritual... think logically and accept the testimony of science. Their likely answer to the query "Do you believe in God?" is, "It depends on what you mean by that term." They're wary of the G-word because it's come to be associated with belief in an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky, whereas they're more inclined to postulate a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar. In short, they are rational, reasonable individuals who regard the spiritual dimension of life as a central feature of human development and pursue it in the spirit of good old American pragmatism. They do what works, placing direct experience and observation over ideology or doctrine. To the degree that they have faith in something, it is the kind of faith that proceeds from evidence and reason, like a scientist's faith in the outcome of an experiment."
That is exactly my position. And out of that position I was able to re-create one of the most insanely preposterous stories any religion has ever produced; I am able to love and respect and learn from that story because its deepest meaning lies between the words; not in the events described themselves, but in their effect on the reader. And that is why I invite, no, challenge, atheists to read the Mahabharata.
My version, of course.
Definitely. As far as irrational religious fairy-tales are concerned, the Mahabharata out-fantasizes the Bible by legions. Vishnu lying on an Ocean of Milk with Brahma sitting on a lotus growing out of his navel? Check. Magic beings who can change shape at will? Check. Superheroes who ascend to heaven in silver chariots and gain command over superweapons more deadly than the atom bomb? Check. It's all in there. If this is the book Hindus hold most dear then obviously, any self-respecting atheist should shun it; or at the very least, read it only to mock.
As someone who has lived, moved and breathed in this religion for almost 40 years, I'm often frustrated by the clichés and presumptions with which many Westerners—atheists and non-atheists alike—tend to summarise and dismiss Hinduism -- or rather, as I prefer to call it, the Sanatana Dharma. Ask the average Westerner for a word association, and you'll get trite answers such as "caste system" and "holy cow" and "millions of four armed gods." And indeed, the Mahabharata is generously endowed with all of these "typical" Hindu accessories, so that a summary dismissal of the whole vast epic as humbug might be forgiven.
On the other hand…
What about reading it the way a Hindu does? Simply plunging into it as into an exciting fantasy world, taking with you a generous pinch of salt, and willingly checking in your disbelief at the first page, as you would a Harry Potter novel or view a Star Wars movie? A Hindu would never wag a finger at you for your blasphemy; she'd smile and invite you to come closer.
See, in order to understand this book one really needs the mentality of a Hindu. No worries; it's not catching. To think like a Hindu you need a totally different kind of logic. One tenet of Western rationality is that if A is A it cannot also be B. Logical, right? The Hindu says, not so. A can be A and B as well, and for that matter also C. A thing can be true and untrue at the same time. Yes, the Mahabharata is true – but only in a symbolic sense. There was once a great war – but also, there wasn't. These gods exist – but also they don't. If you want to believe it is literally true, then you're welcome; but you don't have to. If you believe that, then it's because you need to believe it, and that belief is your path; and the only thing that matters, really, is your path.
In other words, Hinduism is not one fixed set of beliefs that everyone must adhere to. It is many concepts for many people; from the most concrete faith in millions of gods and goddesses who can and do interact with us humans on a literal level, to the most abstract knowledge that nothing exists. Nothing at all. That this whole physical universe is but an illusion; that the only reality is Consciousness, and we are simply dreams upon that Consciousness. You can find such abstract notions written in ancient Sanskrit texts such as Yoga Vasishta Sara and the Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
This all-embracing attitude that includes every spectrum of human understanding and mentality, from the simple worship of stone idols to the abstract thoughtless Void, is neatly summed up by the following definition of what is a Hindu, formulated by the Supreme Court of India:
"In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus and non-Hindus – whatever creed and worship practices suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange Gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable. The core religion does not even depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one God or many. Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Hinduism is, then, both a civilisation and conglomerate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organisation."
That definition might seem too New-Age, too wishy-washy for some. Don't Hindus know what they believe? Is a Hindu just some sort of any-and-everything-goes hippy with a mind so open it's like a sponge, more holes than substance, sucking up every hare-brained idea under the sun?
Not at all. Most Hindus will have his or her "path", which he or she will follow with dedication and sincerity. I, for instance, am an Advaitist, and have been for the last 40 years; it's one of the most exacting and precise teachings of them all, one that considers Brahman, the spiritual essence underlying all reality, as the only reality; that all gods and the world itself are only aspects of Brahman, appearances within that one reality, consciousness which is one, limitless, impersonal, indefinable, without qualities, eternal, unchanging, inactive (complete in itself thus no need to act); that an ultimate unity exists in the multiplicity of gods, religions, cultures and indeed all life.
At the same time I can read and enjoy and believe and even rewrite an epic full of gods and demons and supernatural events as the Mahabharata. I can go to a Catholic service on Christmas morning and sing as heartily as any of the faithful. I will visit a Buddhist or a Sikh temple and take part in the ceremonies there – without ever losing touch with my own individual practice.
And I really, really avoid discussions with atheists. Because all too often religion, all religion, is dismissed by atheists without any further consideration; as if we are all of the same ilk, all of the same backward frame of mind, all one set of rubbish that needs to be swept out. It's an "either you're an atheist or you're an illogical idiot believing in fairies in the sky" mentality that leaves me voiceless. Huffington Post blogger Philip Goldberg spoke up for me (and others like me) back in October 2010 in his call for a "sane spirituality", repudiating the false atheist stand that there are only two sides in the religious debate: conservative Bible-thumpers and radical anti-religionists. The real voiceless ones belong to neither of those two camps, says Goldberg; and there are a whole lot of them. They are a diverse, unorganized mish-mash of open-minded seekers that tends to approach spirituality in a reasonable, rational and pragmatic manner: they are spiritual but not religious (SBNR). "Many practice methodologies derived from ancient traditions born in India, which we've come to call Hinduism and Buddhism, although very few Western practitioners call themselves Hindus or Buddhists."
The group include people with secular world views, who view practices such as meditation as the applied components of a science of consciousness, or simply as ways to enhance well-being. Last but not least, the voiceless include many people who appear to be conventionally religious, in that they attend worship services, celebrate religious holidays and teach their children about their religious heritage, but on their own terms. They don't believe everything that staunch atheists assume they believe, neither do they accept all religious dogma as revealed truth. If they do value scripture, they do so selectively and read it metaphorically, not as history or as an infallible guide to morality.
"The sanely spiritual... think logically and accept the testimony of science. Their likely answer to the query "Do you believe in God?" is, "It depends on what you mean by that term." They're wary of the G-word because it's come to be associated with belief in an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky, whereas they're more inclined to postulate a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar. In short, they are rational, reasonable individuals who regard the spiritual dimension of life as a central feature of human development and pursue it in the spirit of good old American pragmatism. They do what works, placing direct experience and observation over ideology or doctrine. To the degree that they have faith in something, it is the kind of faith that proceeds from evidence and reason, like a scientist's faith in the outcome of an experiment."
That is exactly my position. And out of that position I was able to re-create one of the most insanely preposterous stories any religion has ever produced; I am able to love and respect and learn from that story because its deepest meaning lies between the words; not in the events described themselves, but in their effect on the reader. And that is why I invite, no, challenge, atheists to read the Mahabharata.
My version, of course.
December 25, 2011
Joy to the World!
.... this beautiful Christmas morning 2011!
Whether or not you are Christian, whether or not you celebrate Christmas...
...after all, the Christmas message is not "joy to all Christians" but to the world; and joy is what we all long for, what is so desperately needed in this place of spiritual hunger, conflict and searching.
Raised by atheist parents, growing up conflicted between their rationalist message and the Christian tradition I learnt at school, I finally found my spiritual home in India, in a traditional Hindu ashram -- and it was there I finally understood the deeper meaning of Christianity, and the essential truth of all religions.
It might seem strange to find a Christian picture and message on a blog about a Hindu book. To me, it's not strange at all. It's perfectly normal. There's not a Christian joy and a Hindu joy and a Buddhist joy and an atheist joy. There is only joy.
I'll be writing about that more in the days to come; for now, it's truly Joy to the World.
Joy to the World!.... this beautiful Christmas morning 20...
Joy to the World!
.... this beautiful Christmas morning 2011!
Whether or not you are Christian, whether or not you celebrate Christmas...
...after all, the Christmas message is not "joy to all Christians" but to the world; and joy is what we all long for, what is so desperately needed in this place of spiritual hunger, conflict and searching.
Raised by atheist parents, growing up conflicted between their rationalist message and the Christian tradition I learnt at school, I finally found my spiritual home in India, in a traditional Hindu ashram -- and it was there I finally understood the deeper meaning of Christianity, and the essential truth of all religions.
It might seem strange to find a Christian picture and message on a blog about a Hindu book. To me, it's not strange at all. It's perfectly normal. There's not a Christian joy and a Hindu joy and a Buddhist joy and an atheist joy. There is only joy.
I'll be writing about that more in the days to come; for now, it's truly Joy to the World.
December 22, 2011
What is Dharma?
In Sons of Gods I've generally avoided Sanskrit terms. One of the exceptions, however, is the untranslatable word dharma; a concept that simply does not exist in the West.Put simply, dharma is a composite of many concepts. It includes the idea of duty, righteousness, right action and inner attitude; and yet it is more than the sum of these parts. To act within dharma is to do the right thing, right now, taking into consideration all aspects of that action, past, present and future, as well as individual temperament and needs, and the needs of others affected by that action; and to do it free of anger, resentment or greed.The Indian mind, for a Westerner, is complicated. There is no "right" and "wrong"; everything is subjective, yet not in the modern, Western sense, which centres on the fulfilment one's own needs and desires as long as they don't infringe on the well-being of others. Dharma is not about doing whatever you want, or fulfilling your own desires. In fact, acting within Dharma quite often means the denial of one's own desires, and sometimes, even, the acceptance of unfavourable circumstances. It might be best understood under Reinhold Niebuhr's "Serenity Prayer":God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. But dharma goes beyond the Serenity Prayer, for it includes the concept of knowing and doing one's duty, as well as one's inner attitude towards that duty; the idea that selflessness, in the end, has a higher value than selfishness, and brings with it a higher final reward. Duty must be fulfilled without complaint and without whining: Just Do It, whether or not it results in the things you want. Dharma is the spine that holds society straight; without dharma it falls like an unsupported vine.The idea of dharma as duty or right action stems from the belief that there is a natural order, a universal code or way of life and decision-making that keeps the individual in tune with the whole. Justice, social harmony and human happiness require that we learn to discern and live in a manner appropriate to the requirements of that order; eventually, it leads to Liberation, feedom from the incessant demands of ego. Whereas in the West we think of freedom as the ability to fulfill our wants and desires, the goal of dharma is to be free from desire itself, in order to recognise the inherent truth of who we really are. This is liberation.
Hinduism teaches that there are four ashramas, or stages of life through which each individual tries to fulfill the four goals of human life: kama (sensual pleasures), artha (profit), dharma, and moksha (liberation). Dharma is essential in all four stages; it can be seen as an inner compass through which we can measure and direct our actions. In our youth, our lives are mostly directed by that first two goals, pleasure and profit; but acting according to the principles of dharma will slowly and surely direct us towards the final goal, liberation; with that goal in sight, pleasure and profit are seen as transitory and trivial, providing no lasting satisfaction. They fall away naturally.
In the Bhagavad Gita, the core of the Mahabharata, Krishna teaches dharma as acting without attachment to the fruits of action; this, for the Hindu, is true strength. In the Mahabharata, Yudhisthira is the one character who embodies the concept of dharma; in fact, he is sired by the god of dharma, and because Dharma is the code by which he lives he becomes known as King Dharma. To the Western reader, Yudhisthira may appear too good to be true. He might seem goody-goody, regarded as too meek and mild: a wimp. Why does he not resist Duryodhana more? Why does he not take the advice of his brothers and destroy his enemy before the situation grows to a head? Why is he so calm and at peace when they are exiled for twelve years? What is wrong with him?Nothing is wrong with him. Yudhisthira's strength is the still, silent strength that comes from within; that knows when to act and when to refrain from action, as exasperating and inexplicable as this may seem to the outsider. He is the Serenity Prayer personified.But Yudhisthira is by no means perfect; he falls victim to his own vice, and even then his behaviour is too good to be true, resulting in the violation of Draupadi, and, finally to war. This is one of the lessons of the Mahabharata: there is no guarantee.Leading a dharmic lif does not mean that from now on you will lie on a bed of roses. All too often the spiritual life is interpreted as other-worldly; people floating on some kind of a silver above the mud of daily life. That blessings will be strewn before youlike manna form heaven. That you will get all you ever wanted, just because "you are such a spiritual person". No. It is struggle and effort all the way. Mistakes will be made; your own shadow will rise up to fight you at every corner. There will be forks in the road and you will make "nad" decisions, ones not in keeping with dharma.But: you will persevere. You will learn form those mistakes and do better next time. You will mature and ripen and grow, and you will find a quiet, subtle, but deep fulfillment in doing the right thing just because it is right, irrespective of the fruits or pleasures it might or might not bring. Just like Krishna said.You are responsible for your own actions, but you cannot control the actions of others. The only real choice you have, at any moment in time, is to be true to your own being.
What is Dharma?In Sons of Gods I've generally avoided San...
What is Dharma?
In Sons of Gods I've generally avoided Sanskrit terms. One of the exceptions, however, is the untranslatable word Dharma; a concept that simply does not exist in the West.
Put simply, Dharma is a composite of many concepts. It includes the idea of duty, righteousness, right action and inner attitude; and yet it is more than the sum of these parts. To act within Dharma is to do the right thing, right now, taking into consideration all aspects of that action, past, present and future, as well as individual temperament and needs, and the needs of others affected by that action; and to do it free of anger, resentment or greed.
The Indian mind, for a Westerner, is complicated. There is no "right" and "wrong"; everything is subjective, yet not in the modern, Western sense, which gives licence to the fulfilment one's own needs and desires as long as they don't infringe on the well-being of others. Dharma is not about doing whatever you want, or fulfilling your own desires. In fact, acting within Dharma quite often means the denial of one's own desires, and sometimes, even, the acceptance of unfavourable circumstances. It might be best understood under Reinhold Niebuhr's"Serenity Prayer":
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
But Dharma goes beyond the Serenity Prayer, for it includes the concept of knowing and doing one's duty, as well as one's attitude towards that duty; the idea that selflessness, in the end, has a higher value than selfishness, and brings with it a higher final reward. Duty must be fulfilled without complaint and without whining: Just Do It, whether or not it results in the things you want. This, for the Hindu, is true strength. It is taught in the Bhagavad Gita, the core of the Mahabharata, by Krishna as acting without attachment to the fruits of action.
In the Mahabharata, Yudhisthira is the one character who embodies the concept of Dharma; in fact, he is sired by the god of Dharma, and because Dharma is the code by which he lives he becomes known as King Dharma. To the Western reader, Yudhisthira may appear too good to be true. He might seem goody-goody, regarded as too meek and mild. Why does he not resist Duryodhana more? Why does he not take the advice of his brothers and destroy his enemy before the situation grows to a head? Why is he so calm and at peace when they are exiled for twelve years? What is wrong with him?
But Yudhisthira is by no means perfect; he falls victim to his own vice, and even then his behaviour is too good to be true, resulting in the violation of Draupadi, and, finally to war. This is one of the lessons of the Mahabharata: there is no guarantee. You are responsible for your own actions, but you cannot control the actions of others. The only real choice you have, at any moment in time, is to be true to your own being.
