Faith

FAITH

by Michael Dolan/B.V. Mahayogi

“You gotta have faith.” George Michael.

“You need a busload of faith to get by” Lou Reed.

Attempts have been made by various faith-based organizations to merge science and theism or to prove theistic concepts using science. Unfortunately, proving theism through science is a contradiction in terms. Science is ideologically neutral; research cannot prove metaphysical concepts. The best that can be done is to question the positivist paradigm and point out that not everything is subject to analysis. Objective methods will not penetrate subjective reality. The infinite Subject will not be subject to study by the finite. He is By Himself and For Himself.

Different currents in theism have come and gone. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that it was possible to establish “proofs” for the existence of God. These “proofs” have not withstood the test of time as it has been seen that the infinite cannot be known through finite argument. Argument alone is insufficient to establish divinity since its basis is doubt. Doubt is the foundation of the scientific method. We accept theoretical argument only when it is tempered by clinical experiment. God and the soul are not subject to clinical experiment. And so, even while Thomas Aquinas and his “proofs” are still popular in some circles, faith must come to terms with the inadequacy of reason. Science and reason can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the soul and God. But while clinical “proof” in the rational sense may appear to be absent, scientific reason alone is not, nor should it be, the only avenue for discovering reality. In fact, there are other means of “seeing” truth, developed consciousness being the foremost.

I have been critical of reason as the only means of understanding the reality in which we live. The problem is that reason always expresses doubt about transcendence and consciousness. Philosophers and scientists reduce consciousness either to a complete dualism of mind versus matter within a greater heirarchy of physical reality, or they enfold the idea of consciousness into a complete monism where the only reality is materialistic. In neither case can reason take on the subject of consciousness as a separate reality.

To separate itself from consciousness for the purpose of studying it objectively, reason or higher thinking requires a metacognitive leap into a unique state of ecstasy. Reason is incapable of this. Ecstasy and reason are incompatible. Ecstasy is beyond metacognition. Where metacognition allows us to step back a bit and examine how we think, ecstasy demands that we completely stand outside ourselves, shedding our pretensions to mere understanding. Ecstasy leaves behind Kant’s prohibitions against metaphysics and the dogmas of science. But this is impossible in the world of reason.

And so, reason expresses a world view which is either too pessimistic to admit the reality of spiritual experience or too optimistic about a future progress to take in the reality of life and death.

There must be a balance between reason and ecstasy; this harmony may be called religion. Religion means “proper adjustment,”or the ability to strike a balance between right living in the world of birth and death and optimism about our absolute concern and complete self-interest.

Atheists and materialists believe that spiritual optimism is misplaced, the optimism found in a properly adjusted religious framework is based upon faith, which is a higher way of seeing reality than mere reason. Without such spiritual optimism, life would be only despair. As Kierkegaard put it, “If there were no eternal consciousness in man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what then would life be but despair?”

But the universe is not empty. Consciousness tells us it is not. Consciousness in faith transforms us with the knowledge that the universe is not meaningless. This faith is directed towards the infinite center where meaning is complete and transcends time and space. Faith guides us to the infinite whose circumference cannot be found and whose center is everywhere. Alone in the darkness with despair and doubt, faith supplies us with the affirmation: “Yes! It is! You are not alone. He exists.”

Saint Teresa in ecstasy

Much of the opprobrium directed towards faith takes place as a reaction to the excesses of institutionalized religion and its taboos, especially in Christianity and Catholicism. What we know as modern culture has acquired its most significant characteristics in its conscious and unconscious reaction to medieval culture. Its scientific discoveries made it impatient with the mythical errors of medieval religion. But it failed to realize that mythical descriptions of reality, though always inexact in describing detailed and historical fact, have the virtue of giving men a sense of depth in life.

Pure science is always secular and horizontal in its references, and cannot express the vertical tendencies in culture which refer to the ultimate source of meaning in life. Modern culture substituted for the dualism and pessimism of medieval culture a simple naturalistic monism and optimism. It claims that the physical world is all that exists, and if there is any duality between mind and body further research will resolve that duality into the “oneness” of physical nature.

Positivism sees history in dynamic terms; the Hegelian dynamic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis when applied to the human struggle seems to show constant change and “progress.” The futurists of the 20th century believed that man was on the verge of a breakthrough which would guide him to the next stage in evolution. Unfortunately the 21st century has revealed the hollowness of these promises. We no longer believe in the unlimited optimism of the atomic age. Dystopian novels outsell optimistic science fiction. And yet the religion of modern culture continues to supply us with its rationale. Modern culture has its mythology: “science and progress will make you free.” But at core, the culture of physicalism is hollow.

The religion of modern culture then, has no meaning. As theologian Reinhold Niebuhr put it:

The religion of modern culture is in other words, a superficial religion which has discovered a meaningful world without having discovered the perils to meaning in death, sin and catastrophe. History has an immediate, an obvious, meaning because it spells progress. Progress is guaranteed by increasing intelligence because human sin is attributed to ignorance which will be removed by a proper pedagogy. (Reinhold Niebuhr, from his sermon “Optimism, Pessimism and Religious Faith”)

I have described Faith as a “way of knowing.” What exactly do I mean by this? We have many tools available to us for understanding our world. Reason is one of them. Sense perception is another. Materialists insist that rational logic is the only tool by which we may understand our world. But this is artificial.

No one would seriously insist, for example, that x-rays are the only way for interpreting the world. I might decide that as a scientist, I will only accept the evidence of x-rays since they allow me to see things as they really are. In such a case I would refuse to eat an apple that had not been x-rayed.

An X-rayed apple may reveal a worm. But a diet of radiated apples is unhealthy. By insisting on only one way of seeing our vision is extremely limited. Science excludes consciousness, saying that subjective phenomenon cannot be measured and therefore should not be included in our picture of reality. But our world is living organic whole, not a dead combination of elements. By excluding consciousness, we become unconscious.

Faith is a different way of seeing, a different way of knowing. Through faith we may understand consciousness. Faith allows us to see our finite consciousness and to commune with the ultimate consciousness.

The very idea of faith is much maligned. It might be helpful, before going further, to consider what faith is not. Popular thinkers have distorted the meaning of faith, alienating religion from science. In fact, much philosophical and even theological thought misses the essential meaning of faith. Faith is a way of seeing that brings us in alignment with our true self-interest. Our true self interest has nothing to do with our conditional lives. Success, family, work, society, nation are all aspects of conditioned temporary life. Faith has nothing to do with these aspects of our temporary life. Selfish interest works in the service of ego. Faith is not a function of ego. Rather it serves to dissolve false ego and bring us in harmony with the real self, or atma.

Faith demands total surrender and promises complete fulfillment through communion with divinity in divine love. It involves sacrifice of self and realization of our ultimate self-interest. Aesthetic, social, sexual, political and national interests are not eternal. Our self-interest is what is in the interest of the eternal soul or atma. Faith is the ability to see that interest and to act in that self-interest. Because it is based on transcendental experience and communion with divinity it is a firm conviction.

Faith is not the same as belief. Atheists and materialists try to define faith as a belief not based on evidence. Such belief without evidence may be based on authority, such as the authority of scriptures. But such belief is not the same as faith. Faith is more than mere trust in a heirarchy or in a holy book. True faith is founded on one’s personal communioin with divinity. “Faith” is not theoretical knowledge and is not founded on arguments or scientific evidence, but in one’s personal innate experience of divine reality. Faith is not a kind of belief based on scant evidence and scriptural authority. It is the fact of finite consciousness confronting the infinite.

Faith teaches us that our existence is not meaningless. The search for meaning is an innate characteristic of human consciousness. The search itself is an expression of faith, reaching out for confirmation. Faith is distinct from belief. The foundation of faith is in inspiration given from above. Faith may come from a number of sources, but is especially powerful when developed in contact with saints. Faith is an unshakable conviction. Where belief is certainty coaxed into action through evidence, beliefs shift.

Faith is ecstatic. The word “ecstasy” from Greek ekstasis means ‘standing outside oneself.’ The ability to disconnect from the world of sense, mind, and perception; the capacity to see beyond oneself is a facet of ecstasy. Faith may involve a cognitive affirmation of deeply understood communion, but may not need a rational explanation. Faith is apart from belief. One may will one’s self to “believe” but faith cannot be faked.

Acceptance and surrender are aspects of faith when faith is expressed through action--but faith cannot be conjured through mere obedience to doctrine, dogma, and belief.

Faith is not emotion. Faith may be able to express itself through cognition and offer a rational argument to justify the ways of God to man as Milton put it, but faith also has reasons that reason may not know. It is an expression of the inner self. When we set aside reason as a path to knowning the self we encounter faith as a kind of “third eye,” the visionary element that allows us to see within and beyond.

True faith descends. It is revealed from up to down. There is no technique by which one may come by faith. As we seek the infinite, so does the infinite seek us. But the finite cannot know the infinite. Faith can be found only through revelation. Only when the infinite reveals itself to the finite can we know what is divinity. And that revelation brings faith.

Faith is the essence of human life. Thomas Merton reminds us: “Men without deep faith live as it were with no center and no heart, and consequently one can only expect violence, injustice, confusion and chaos. But we can continue to hope in the mercy of the Lord, that He may give light and peace to men and help them make the necessary efforts to recover peace and wisdom. Faith only is the answer, and we must grow always in the purity of faith, otherwise all will be ever greater confusion.”

Faith has the power to transform. One’s greatness may be measured by the greatness of one’s faith and the power of one’s ideal. Love is a great ideal. To love one’s self is valuable. To love one’s country is a higher ideal. To love others as one’s self is a greater ideal. But to love God with all one’s heart and soul is the highest ideal, for it includes the others. One becomes in proportion to one’s faith. Those of limited faith believe in the possible; great souls risk everything to achieve the impossible. From a practical angle of vision the Quixote of Cervantes is a fool. And yet Dostoyevsky considered him the greatest character in literature, since he gave everything for an impossible dream. Those who expect the impossible have the greatest faith. One is great according to the magnitude of his most impossible dream. We shall be remembered as great in proportion to the magnitude of what we strove for. One becomes great by conquering the world; one becomes greater by conquering himself; but one who surrenders himself in complete dedication is the greatest. One who conquers the world is great; one who conquers God through submission and surrender, through humility and powerlessness is the greatest.

Normally, we think of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice as the greatest act of submission in history. And yet, in Judaeo-Christian mythology, there was another who was not only great in wisdom and strength but in hope and faith. This was Abraham.

Abraham sacrificing Isaac

Before Christ, before the desert prophets of the ancient Bible was Abraham. The Old Testament records him as the father of the Hebrews and founder of Judaism. Islam knows him as the ancestor of the Arabs. Abraham was a man of great faith who left the land of his fathers to become a stranger in a strange land. He left behind his worldly understanding and carried with him only his faith. He was God’s chosen. And yet he suffered for his faith. He was blessed by God that all the nations of the earth would blessed in his seed, but while he was old, he and Sarah his chaste wife had no child. His faith was tested.

Abraham had faith that the Lord would bless him with a son. His wife Sarah, while no longer young, still had hope to become a mother. But Abraham was old and grey. Finally their prayers were answered and Sarah was able to have a child, a boy: Isaac. His faith was fulfilled. His child would be his heir. And yet God would test his faith again.

God tempted Abraham and said unto him, “take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him therse for a burnt offereing upon one of the mountains, which I will tell thee of.” (Genesis 22) How could God take from Abraham his only begotten son?

It may be remembered that Abraham did see God. There was no divine revelation in the form of a burning bush. But he heard him through divine sound. The old man was shocked. He had waited seventy years for the innocent child Isaac. And yet he had been chosen and was being tested. Was the promise that his seed would populate Israel an empty one?

Abraham’s faith was tested by God Himself, who demanded he sacrifice his son, Isaac. Abraham had an intense experience of divinity, called faith. While his personal self interest was challenged, his true self-interest lay in faith.

Awareness of divinity brings us in connection with our true self-interest which may be found through sacrifice and surrender in faith. Experience of the divine is called adhokshaka a personal relationship with divinity in transcendence, beyond sensory perception, beyond reason, beyond a mere taste of the unmanifest, undifferentiated spiritual reality. This ecstatic experience of God, a communion between the finite and the infinite grounded in surrender, is called bhakti. Was Abraham’s self-surrender bhakti?

We are told to avoid coveting the fruits of our labor, but to offer them to God. After a lifetime, Abraham finally had a son, the fruit of his life and his prayers. Was this fruit now to be plucked from him?

But Abraham had faith and did not doubt. If God’s order was absurd, Abraham believed the absurd. He did not beg for himself or ask God to change his order.

And so it came to pass that early in the morning, Abraham rose, and taking his servants with him, saddled the mules and left his tent. He took his innocent son, Isaac and rode out to the mountain of Moriah. He said nothing to his wife Sarah who watched them from the window. He gave no explanation to his son as they rode through the valley. In three days, they rode in silence as they approached the mountain.

Leaving the servants with the mules behind, Abraham climbed the mountain with Isaac. He found a suitable place for an altar on the mountaintop. Isaac could see what was happening, but did not understand. He fell at the feet of his father and begged for his life. He promised to be good. Abraham lifted the boy up and spoke sweet words to comfort him. The boy did not understand. Abraham chopped wood and arranged a sacrificial fire. He set the kindling ablaze. He bound Isaac.

When Isaac looked into his eyes he was terrified. Abraham’s gaze was fixed. His knife was sharp. He raised the knife above the child’s head. The boy trembled with fear.

Now while Abraham was old and had waited his entire life to get a son, Isaac was even more special. He was to be the father of many of the tribes of Israel as well as the Arabs who would trace their heritage to his lineage. But if it was God’s will that he be taken, Abraham was ready for the sacrifice. His heart was paralyzed with horror, but his hand was steady. His faith was strong. He did not doubt. He reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He understood the Lord’s purpose. Freeing his son, Isaac, he took the ram and sacrificed the animal as a burnt offering on the altar, giving thanks to God for sparing his only child. And Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.”

The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time  and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,  I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies,and through your progeny all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” At that time, Abraham returned down the mountain to where his servants waited. They saddled up the mules, and set off together for Beersheba.And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.

Of course, the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is prophetic in that it mirrors the idea that God gives his only begotten son in sacrifice. A deeper reading of the story of Abraham brings us closer to an understanding of the Christ story.

The Resurrection: Die to Live.

We may view the sacrifice of Abraham according to the principles of surrender advocated by Śrīla Rūpa Goswāmi. One of the highest principles is to expect the Lord’s protection, and further to be willing to put oneself at risk, knowing that the Lord will protect us. Die to Live.

Rupa Goswami

Abraham’s faith is that “The Lord Will Provide.” or as Rūpa Goswāmi puts it

anukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ prātikūlyasya varjanam

rakṣiṣyatīti viśvāso goptṛtve varaṇaṁ tathā

ātma-nikṣepa-kārpaṇye ṣaḍ-vidhā śaraṇāgatiḥ

अनुकूल्यस्य सङ्कल्पः प्रातिकूल्यस्य वर्जनम् रक्षिष्यतीति विश्वासो गोप्तृत्वे वरणं तथा आत्मनिक्षेप कार्पण्ये षड्-विधा शरणागतिः “‘The six divisions of surrender are the acceptance of those things favorable to devotional service, the rejection of unfavorable things, the conviction that the Lord will provide and protect, putting oneself at risk while accepting the Lord as one’s guardian or master, full self-surrender, and humility.

Abraham risked his family, his reputation, his legacy and his beloved child for his faith. In the end, Abraham’s story is one of sacrifice based on faith. At last, he is spared the ordeal of sacrifice. His sincerity is enough.

A similar sacrifice to that of Abraham is found in the story of Parashuram. The legend is recorded in the ancient Mahabharata some thousand years before the biblical histories of Abraham.

Long ago in India, the valley of the now extinct Saraswati river was populated with humble brahmins who practiced charity, austerity, mercy, and purity as their religious principles. Devoted to a monotheistic faith, they worshipped Vishnu as the supreme Lord, holiest of holies.

Among them was Jamadagni, a great sage who maintained an ashram for the cultivation of Vedic wisdom. Jamadani lived with his wife Renuka and his sons among whom Parashuram was the youngest. They were poor and humble. Parashuram was especially devoted to his father. One day, his mother Renuka went to gather water at the sacred river. While there, she saw a handsome young prince who had courted her before she had married Jamadagni. As the prince smiled at her in passing, she indulged in adulterous thoughts. Jamadagni could read her mind. When she returned, he was enraged. He ordered young Parashuram to behead her with an axe.

Parashuram found himself in much the same position as did Abraham. He was ordered by divine authority, in this case his father, to sacrifice the one he loved, his own mother. His faith in his father was such that he complied. Raising his axe, he beheaded his mother. His father was impressed with his obedience and offered him a boon. He immediately asked that Jamadagni use his mystic powers to restore his mother’s life.

Jamadagni revived Renuka with his mystic powers, restoring her life. She had no memory of anything after she had gone to collect the water.

What are we to make of this gruesome tale? Often we find that Christians are revolted by the mythology of the Hindus, even while discovering esoteric meanings in their own mythology. The story of Abraham is certainly as gruesome as the story of Parashuram. And yet it reveals deep metaphors about faith and sacrifice. The same metaphors apply in the story of Parashuram. They are extended to include the miracle of resurrection. Renuka’s sin is only mental; her death and resurrection is a metaphor for the rejection of mental sin and the discovery of new life through faith. This is the meaning of resurrection or “die to live.”

The ideas found in the stories of Abraham and Parashuram are not meant to promote fanaticism, but to enable us further reflection on faith and sacrifice. The true purport of sacrifice in faith is neither martyrdom nor fanaticism, but enlightened action, realized through surrender.

short vacation

I´m taking a few days off...

Materialismo

Materialismo, una Crisis de Identidad

por Michael Dolan, B.V. Mahayogi

traducido por Teresa Loret de Mola, Tapanandini

redactada por Parama Priya DD

Materialismo: Callejón sin Salida.

No podemos conocer El tiempo ni el espacio. Podremos hallar suficiente información acerca de nuestro entorno para manipular el mundo fenomenológico, pero la propia materia permanecerá por siempre desconocido. Agravamos el error al negar la existencia de la conciencia. Irónicamente, mientras el conocimiento de la materia nos elude, podemos conocer la conciencia íntimamente, pues es lo que somos.

La obsesión con el estudio de la materia es un callejón sin salida. El materialismo puede ofrecernos la llave a la felicidad, pero al final es una puerta falsa, no nos lleva a ningún lado. Aquellos quienes tienen el infortunio de ocupar sus vidas en la búsqueda material tienen únicamente la muerte como recompensa. La felicidad material es una ilusión que nunca puede ser alcanzada. ¿Cuánto dinero es suficiente? Los placeres sexuales pueden parecer la mayor felicidad, pero el fin lógico del placer sexual es la reproducción sexual y los niños pueden ser un gozo o un lazo. El sexo no es un fin en sí mismo. El sexo en busca del puro placer sexual no puede conducir hacia la felicidad, pues el placer físico y la felicidad no son la misma cosa.

Falsa Moral y Placer Físico

El placer físico es únicamente una contraparte del dolor físico. Al final, esta vida es temporal y el poder del placer físico disminuye con la vejez. La debilidad, la vejez y la muerte son inevitables y no puedes ser contra atacadas a través de la búsqueda del placer físico. Por ello, la felicidad material es una ilusión. Incluso la acción tiene una reacción igual y opuesta. Cuando el placer material se persigue excluyendo otros valores, la explotación es inevitable. La explotación tiene consecuencias. La ley del Karma de los Upaniṣads no puede sobrepasarse a través del placer de los sentidos materiales. Incluso después de la muerte las consecuencias de la acción continuarán.

La negación materialista de la ley del karma. Para los materialistas no existe nada después de la muerte. Si la conciencia no existe y no hay nada después de la muerte, entonces la moral no es necesaria.

Kant y Jaimini. Dios como Juez

Después de establecer una cuarentena racional que excluye cualquier discusión acerca de Dios o del espíritu del reino de la razón, Immanuel Kant se da cuenta de que ha creado un gran riesgo moral. Debido a que emitió el certificado de defunción de Dios, la moralidad también había muerto. Kant quería resucitar una versión de Dios más débil para apoyar la moralidad basada en la razón práctica. Y entonces, el filósofo agnóstico argumentó acerca de la moral basada en la razón práctica. Argumentó que debido a que la meta de la humanidad es la de alcanzar la felicidad perfecta y la virtud una vida después de la muerte ha de existir para hacer esto posible. Dios por ello ha de existir para proveernos con una recompensa a la moralidad. El materialismo agnóstico de Kant incluye a Dios como pensamiento posterior, para proporcionarnos los frutos de la acción kármica. Esto se asemeja a la versión hinduista antigua del Karma-mimamsa de Jaimini o filosofía “Apurva”

La versión de Bhaktivinod.

En su Tattva-Viveka, Bhaktivinoda Thakura explica los paralelos y contrastes entre la filosofía materialista kármica de Jainmini y la filosofía moral de Kant. Explica que “Jaimini sabía bien que la creencia natural en Dios estaba en el corazón de los seres humanos. Por ello en su filosofía apūrva  cuidadosa y astutamente elaboró un Dios imaginario quien otorga los resultados de las acciones. Oculta así bajo el manto de la creencia en Dios, la filosofía atea Karma-mīmāṁsā predicada por los smārta-panditas la cual tiene fuertes seguidores en India. Una persona interesada en sí misma a menudo entra en conflicto con el interés de otra persona.

Bhaktivinod continúa, explicando que cuando una persona de inteligencia promedio oye la palabra altruismo, se siente atraída, pues piensa que siguiendo la filosofía del altruismo su propio deseo será satisfecho. Esa es otra razón por la que se ha diseminado tanto la filosofía del materialismo ateo. Los ateos smārta-paṇditas en India aceptan la adoración a Dios sólo para promover su filosofía atea. Si en ocasiones ellos aceptan las ideas de una vida póstuma y de un Dios quien otorga los resultados de las acciones, ellos las aceptan sólo como partes subordinadas de su filosofía kármica.

-->

La verdadera devoción (bhakti) a Dios nunca es vista en esta clase de filosofía kármica. Los filósofos saben que en cualquier sistema moral agnóstico habrá corrupción: el altruismo gradualmente se vuelve hacia el egoísmo. Los filósofos Occidentales como Kant y  la filosofía Hindú del karma de Jaimini inventan un “Dios” exclusivamente con el fin de presionar su ley del karma. Ellos aceptan la existencia de un dios único y omnisciente quien otorga los resultados de las acciones. Bhaktivinod explica que esos filósofos promueven una concepción de Dios meramente para asegurar que la buena moralidad es recompensada y la mala moralidad es castigada. Ellos entonces citan muchos pasajes de las escrituras para mostrar cómo la adoración a Dios es parte de la filosofía karma-mimāmsā. De esta forma aceptan un Dios imaginario. Kant temiendo que su imperativo moral tal vez no sea tomado en serio, imagina a un Dios que podría ser considerado real con el propósito de recompensar la virtud y castigar el vicio y que Dios ha de existir para hacer cumplir las reglas de la ley. Kant era más honesto intelectualmente que Jaimini. Y sin embargo la “filosofía moral” es un argumento débil que nunca realmente ha convencido a nadie. Esta idea imaginaria de adoración a Dios con propósitos morales nunca atrajo a muchos seguidores. Debido a que él era esencialmente un agnóstico, no insistió realmente. Su argumento moral defendiendo la existencia de Dios no convenció a muchos filósofos. Jaimini, por otro lado, tenía un entendimiento más profundo de la sicología humana. Era más perspicaz que Kant en insistir en un Dios quien puede satisfacer las leyes del karma y por ello su filosofía karma-mīmāmsā logró enorme aceptación en la comunidad smārta-pandita. Al final Kant y Jaimini sostienen la misma filosofía, la idea de que un Dios imaginario es útil para reforzar la moralidad y para recompensar el “buen karma”. Un examen más cercano revelará que ni el “imperativo moral” de Kant ni la filosofía karma mīmāmsā de Jaimini son sostenibles, pues ambas evitan una comprensión más profunda de la realidad consciente, la naturaleza eterna del ser y de Dios. Por eso ellos no están en la posición de aportar una auténtica bienaventuranza a la sociedad humana. El imperativo moral de Kant no es suficiente para la auto-realización. El positivismo lógico apunta hacia la bienaventuranza para la sociedad humana, pero se queda corto, debido a que evita la satisfacción de nuestro propio interés. Un sistema de materialismo que ignora la realidad espiritual nunca puede satisfacer nuestra demanda interna. Del mismo modo, el arcaico sistema de Jaimini del buen karma, llamado karma-mīmāmsā no tiene el poder de desenraizar los pecados. Todos estos intentos externos de moralidad o “buen karma” están condenados al fracaso, puesto que no son sinceros. El buen karma y el mal karma son externos al problema de la auto-realización. Con buen Karma tal vez podamos promovernos hacia una posición más elevada en el mundo del nacimiento y la muerte. Y con el mal karma tal vez podamos ser castigados en el mundo del nacimiento y la muerte. La vida condicionada en el mundo del nacimiento y muerte es a menudo comparada a una prisión. No es inteligente para un prisionero el pensar únicamente en mejorar su condición. Si un prisionero piensa, “Estoy en una celda- permitan que solicite al guardia que cambie mi celda y seré feliz” esta es una idea errónea. Uno no puede estar feliz mientras se halla entre los muros carcelarios. Nuestro objetivo ha de ser el liberarnos de los “ismos” que nos mantienen condicionados, para liberarnos completamente de los “ismos” del materialismo. El verdadero “buen karma” se funda únicamente en el servicio devocional a Dios. Mientras el karma continúa llamándose a sí mismo buen karma no es una parte del servicio devocional, puesto que invoca sólo a Dios sólo para hacer cumplir los resultados del karma. Una verdadera relación con la divinidad no puede adquirirse a través de los méritos de un buen trabajo, sino a través de la misericordia, a través de la rendición, a través del amor divino. Cuando es verdaderamente parte  del servicio devocional, el karma se llama a sí mismo bhakti. Buen karma o mal karma son ambos componentes del materialismo. Mientras se llame a sí mismo por el nombre karma. Este karma será un rival del servicio devocional y siempre intentará hacerse más importante que el servicio devocional. La moralidad o buen karma afirma que ayuda a la filosofía, a la civilización y al arte, pero esto es verdadero únicamente cuando se transforma en bhakti. La moralidad materialista es externa al verdadero interés del alma humana. Debido a que el tiempo y el espacio no pueden conocerse a través del materialismo, debemos profundizar. Kant y otros filósofos intentan  establecer una razón para la acción ética con base en la teoría del “imperativo moral”, pero si no hay reacción al karma y no hay vida después de la muerte, entonces no hay necesidad para la moralidad. Como lo expresa Dostoievski, “Si Dios no existe, todo es posible,” es decir ninguna acción es inmoral. Y sin moralidad la vida humana es vida animal. El materialismo sin egoísmo (altruista) no es posible. La tendencia humana innata hacia el altruismo es evidencia de un orden ontológico superior. Rousseau creía que el hombre primitivo era más virtuoso precisamente porque estaba en contacto con una moralidad natural que fluye desde la condición espiritual. Tal vez haya una naturaleza sin egoísmo en el hombre que tiende hacia el altruismo. Pero si una ausencia de egoísmo “natural” existe, se debe únicamente porque nuestra condición “natural” es la de vivir en armonía con Dios. En un sentido más elevado, el SELF-ish-ness (N/T Ego-simo, sería la traducción pero aquí se trata del SELF significando al SER y no del ego mundano como podría interpretarse) Es natural estar en contacto con el SER, nuestro ser interno. La Auto-realización es egoísta y es natural. Pero la auténtica auto-realización significa realizar el propio SER como parte y parcela del SER eterno o Paramātmā. La forma más elevada de autorrealización es el hallar el propio ser como sirviente del Ser Supremo. No existe tal cosa como materialismo libre de egoísmo. El materialismo nos enseña a vivir en la ley de la jungla, a explotar a otros en una carrera de ratas de la supervivencia del más apto.

Subjective Evolution: Beyond Space and Time

Materialism and the Mind-Body Problem

Materialists dissolve the Cartesian mind-body problem into atoms and the void. The mind-body problem is an illusion, they say. Consciousness is not a “hard” problem; it is a word in search of a definition. Whatever is meant by consciousness must have a natural explanation. For Wittgentstein, philosophy is alphabet soup. It is not philosophically “rigorous” to use the word consciousness. Electrical impulses between nerve synapses produce a symphony of sensations. We label these sensations as “consciousness,” when that word is unscientific. The word consciousness denotes “sense and sensibility,” memory, mind, nervous awareness, and sentience. All these processes may be mimicked by micro-processors. Artificial Intelligence can beat us at chess, word-games and trivial pursuits so completely that the “Turing” test has long since been surpassed. Computers have achieved what we call “consciousness,” proving that what we consider “mind” is merely an epiphenomenon of the brain, a peripheral function of a certain ensemble of nerve endings. Mind exists as a function of matter. The neural impulses that constitute mind are functions of a structure within brain-forms that took millions of years to evolve. It may take some time to understand how that function works, but science and philosophy is working on the problem. In the mean time, we should enjoy the short time we have on this earth, since there is nothing to look forward after death. The afterlife is an illusion and God is a delusion.

Limited Thinking

The above arguments of the materialists are intellectually dishonest. The great skeptic David Hume confessed that while he considered Berkeley’s idealism false, it was “impossible to refute.” Scientists refute the mind-body dichotomy by claiming it doesn’t exist. Since only matter exists, mind is a function of matter and there is no duality. The body is physical and is accounted for by physical principles. There is no need to appeal to anything called a “mind,” or psyche for an explanation of purely physical principles. Any appeal to supernatural principles is an abdication of our intellectual responsibilities. Both mind and body are products of a long process of evolution that took place over millions of years and that we are only just now beginning to explain. Anyone who questions the evolutionary process is uneducated and superstitious.

However clever these great scientific minds, we cannot simply wish the mind out of existence. It is wishful thinking to banish the thinker out of existence. If mind is a figment of the imagination, we are still faced with the problem: what is imagination and who is the imaginer? While the existence of consciousness is self-evident, materialists engage in millions of hours of word-games to avoid accepting any spiritual reality.

Space and time cannot be known. And in analyzing space and time as phenomenon it is intellectually dishonest to discard the hard problem of consciousness as a mental invention. Albert Einstein is often credited as a scientific genius; the greatest mind of the 20th century. Einstein discovered relativity by the use of thought experiments. He famously dreamed of riding on a beam of light and considered the nature of time and space relative to the speed of light. But where is Einstein’s theory without thought?

Subjective Evolution of Consciousness

Science claims to be “objective,” but the entire edifice of science is built upon thought. Thought is subjective by nature, being a product of mind. How then are we to conceive of the phenomenon of reality without considering consciousness.

Materialists consider consciousness as a consequence of matter. The Theory of Subjective Evolution poses the question, how can this be? How can the object of thought create ideas? Is it possible that inactive, inert matter exerts some spiritual influence upon brains that conjures consciousness into existence? And what of living entities without brains? If consciousness is always an “epiphenomenon” of the brain, are beings who have no brain sentient?

Plants are both heliotropic and geotropic; their roots seek out earth and their leaves seek out sunshine. Plants are biological entities. They are clearly living beings. Can they be said to be “conscious?” If so, then “consciousness” is not an “ephiphenomenon” of the brain, but an ever present reality that permeates the entire time-space continuum even at the cosmic level.

“Thought” and the brain may be connected, and yet their manner connection is much more subtle than casual observation reveals.

Henri Bergson, "Creative Evolution"

Henri Bergson and "Creative Evolution"

The last of the great 19th Century philosophers was Henri Bergson, who lived to debate Albert Einstein. Henri Bergson had no complaint against Einstein’s science. He had great appreciation for the genius of Relativity theory. And yet, he objected to the mechanistic ideology underpinning Einstein’s contribution. By promoting a mechanistic and deterministic view of reality, Einstein was minimizing subjective reality and the role of consciousness.

If mind was matter, Bergson argued, and every mental act a merely the mechanical result of neutral states, of what use was consciousness? Why couldn’t the material mechanism of the brain dispense with this “epiphenomenon?” Why would determinism necessarily be make more sense than free will? If there is no free will, if time has no choice, then we live in an entirely deterministic universe. Like the balls on a billiard table, once set in motion everything moves according to the laws of Newton and Darwin. Every event since the dawn of time is an expression of matter and motion. And as one motion creates another equal and opposite reaction from the time of the big bang every movement of every atom is simple action and reaction. From the age of the dinosaurs to every line of Shakespeare’s plays, every word of Chekhov, every rebellious scream of Elvis and the Beatles is simply the endless reaction of atoms in the void, moving to the rhythm of a predetermined beat.

Each movement of Beethoven’s symphonies, every step of Fred Astaire’s dance routines was written in a far off galaxy by the molecular structure and movement of the orginal explosion that rocked the universe. If belief in the supernatural origin of consciousness strains credulity, then what of this weird faith in deterministic physics? What an amazing suspension of disbelief the scientific world demanded of the 20th century!

The biblical legends of the Old Testament pale before such bleak and cynical myth as the idea of a dead nebula of fading stardust composing tragedies for all time.

Such was the dilemma facing the philosophers who confronted the scientists of the early 20th century. Their complaints would be blasted to smithereens by the atomic bomb.

In his excellent book,  The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant summarizes Bergson as follows:

Mind, then, is not identical with brain. Consciousness depends upon the brain, and falls with it; but so does a coat fall with the nail on which it hangs,—which does not prove that the coat is an “epiphenomenon,” an ornamental ectoplasm of the nail. The brain is the system of images and reaction-patterns; consciousness is the recall of images and the choice of reactions. “The direction of the stream is distinct from the river bed, although it must adopt its winding course. Consciousness is distinct from the organism which it animates, although it must undergo its vicissitudes.”

Henri Bergson:

It is sometimes said that in ourselves, consciousness is directly connected with a brain, and that we must therefore attribute consciousness to living beings which have a brain, and deny it to those which have none. But it is easy to see the fallacy of such an argument. It would be just as though we should say that because in ourselves digestion is directly connected with a stomach, therefore only living beings with a stomach can digest. We should be entirely wrong, for it is not necessary to have a stomach, nor even to have special organs, in order to digest. An amoeba digests, although it is an almost undifferentiated protoplasmic mass. What is true is that in proportion to the complexity and perfection of an organism, there is a division of labor; special organs are assigned special functions, and the faculty of digesting is localized in the stomach, or rather is a general digestive apparatus, which works better because confined to that one function alone. In like manner, consciousness in man is unquestionably connected with the brain; but it by no means follows that a brain is indispensable to consciousness. The lower we go in the animal series, the more nervous centers are simplified and separate from one another, and at last they disappear altogether, merged in the general mass of an organism with hardly any differentiation. If, then, at the top of the scale of living beings, consciousness is attached to very complicated nervous centers, must we not suppose that it accompanies the nervous system down its whole descent, and that when at last the nerve stuff is merged in the yet undifferentiated living matter, consciousness is still there, diffused, confused, but not reduced to nothing? Theoretically, then, everything living might be conscious. In principle, consciousness is coextensive with life.6

Mind-Energy, New York, 1920; p. 11.”Excerpt From: Will Durant. “Story of Philosophy (Touchstone Books).” iBooks.

Bergson wants to explore the idea that we seem to think of mind and thought in terms of matter and the brain. Why do we objectify consciousness? Upon reflection, he concludes that the rational aspect of mind, or the intelligence, is materialist by nature. Intelligence arrives at its conclusions through analysis. Intelligence has a reductionist tendency: this or that. It moves through negativity: this process of elimination is called in Sanskrit neti neti, not this, not that.

Bergson argues that human intelligence has evolved to manipulate the objective world; And with this manipulation as object, intelligence scrutinizes “matter” or what we conceive to be real in the world of exploitation. As the subjective soul conceives the world, it sees reality through the filter of the mind which is interested in exploitation. The intelligence facilitates exploitation through analysis.

In his seminal work, Creative Evolution, Bergson points out, “Our intellect, in the narrow sense of the word, is intended to secure the perfect fitting of our body to its environment, to represent the relations of external things among themselves,—in short, to think matter.”

The intelligence, having conceived the world as “objective” analyses reality in terms of objects. It is at home with solids, inert things; it sees all life as objective. This kind of analysis misses the inner reality of consciousness. It mistakes the tissue of things for their innate being. In the same way that our obsession with the objectivity of space denies us a glimpse into the soul, the objectivization of time obstructs our view of duration. The duration of consciousness is the essence of reality. The flow of time goes undetected even as we measure its fragments.

If we watch a movie it seems to our tired eyes to be alive with motion and action. What an achievement of technology. In cinema, science and mechanism have apparently caught the continuity of life. And yet, Bergson argues it is quite the contrary. The movie does not move, is not a picture of motion; it is only a series of instantaneous photographs, “snap-shots,” taken in such rapid succession that when they are thrown in rapid succession upon the screen, the willing spectator enjoys the illusion of continuity. But it is an illusion none the less; and the cinema film is obviously a series of pictures in which everything is as still as if eternally congealed. Science and intellect here reveal their limitations.

Just as the “motion”-picture camera divides into static poses the vivid current of reality, so the human intellect, using the scientific method of analysis does not capture life: it catches a series of states, but loses the continuity that weaves them into life. We see matter and we miss energy; we think that we know what matter is; but when at the heart of the atom we find energy, we are bewildered, and our categories melt away. “No doubt, for greater strictness, all considerations of motion may be eliminated from mathematical processes; but the introduction of motion into the genesis of figures is nevertheless the origin of modern mathematics”; nearly all the progress of mathematics in the nineteenth century was due to the use of the concepts of time and motion in addition to the traditional geometry of space.

“Exact” science doesn’t exist for it misses both the duration of consciousness and the quality of inner life. According to Bergson, science is analysis dissecting objective phenomenal experience; merely an approximation, which catches the inertia of reality better than its life.

We are not anti-science. But the ideology of science obscures spiritual vision. And by accepting the scientific weltanschauung, we face moral hazard. We run the risk of losing our soul. By insisting on a physical model of reality when experiencing consciousness, we impose an objective form of study on a subjective reality. But the subjective soul resists becoming an object of study by the analytical intellect; we can only dead end in an impasse of determinism, mechanism, and materialism.

A simple moment of reflection

A simple moment of reflection might have shown how inappropriate the concepts of physics are in the world of mind. Einstein dreamed of riding a bolt of light. He set the speed limit of the universe at the speed of light. But his own mind was faster. As Einstein did, we can think of traveling not only at the speed of light, but at warp-light speed. A flash of thought can traverse millions of light years to the origin of the universe, as Stephen Hawking has shown. Thought is faster than the speed of light and defies the known laws of the universe.

Our very ideas escape the concept of material particles moving in space, or waves floating at the speed of light. Thought is limited neither by space nor time. I can as easily travel back to the origin of the big bang as to the end of the cosmos mentally. The atma escapes these solid concepts of hard reality; Life is beyond both space and time. The Cartesian mind-body problem dissolves not into naked material energy, but into sublime consciousness which is the source of both space and time.

Materialism is an Identity Crisis

Materialism: a Dead End

Time and space cannot be known. We may find out enough information about our environment to manipulate the phenomenological world, but matter itself will remain a mystery forever. We compound the error by denying the existence of consciousness. Ironically, while the knowledge of matter eludes us, we can know consciousness intimately, for that is who we are.

The obsession with the study of matter is a dead end. Materialism may offer the key to happiness, but in the end it is a false door, leading nowhere. Those who have the misfortune to spend their life in materialistic pursuit have only death as a reward.

Material happiness is an illusion that can never be achieved. How much money is enough? Sexual pleasure would seem to be the greatest happiness, but the logical end of sexual pleasure is sexual reproduction and children may be a joy or a burden. Sex is not an end in itself. Sex for the sake of sexual pleasure cannot lead to happiness, for physical pleasure and happiness are not the same thing.

False Morality and Physical Pleasure

Physical pleasure is just the counterpart to physical pain. In the end, life is temporary and the power of physical pleasure wanes in old age. Infirmity, old age and death are inevitable and cannot be counteracted through the pursuit of physical pleasure. Therefore, material happiness is an illusion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When material pleasure is pursued to the exclusion of other values, exploitation is inevitable. Exploitation has consequences.The Upanishadic law of karma cannot be overcome through materialistic sense pleasure. Even after death the consequences of action will continue.

Materialists deny the law of karma. For materialists the afterlife does not exist. If consciousness does not exist and there is no after-life, then morality is unnecessary.

Kant and Jaimini: God as Judge

After setting up a rational quarantine that excludes any discussion of God or spirit from the realm of reason Immanuel Kant realized that he had created a great moral hazard. Since he had issued a death certificate for God, morality was also dead.

Kant wanted to resurrect a feebler version of God for the purpose of propping up morality. And so, the agnostic philsopher devised an argument from morality based on practical reason. He argued that since the goal of humanity is to achieve perfect happiness and virtue an afterlife must exist in order for this to be possible. God must therefore exist to provide us with the rewards of morality. Kant’s agnostic materialism includes God as an afterthought, to provide us with the fruits of karmic action. This resembles the ancient Hindu version of Jaimini’s Karma-mimamsa or “Apurva” philosophy.

Bhaktivinoda's version

In his Tattva-Viveka, Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains the parallels and contrasts between the materialistic karmic philosophy of Jaimini and the moral philosophy of Kant. He explains that “Jaimini knew well that belief in God naturally stays in the hearts of human beings. Therefore in his apūrva philosophy he carefully and cunningly crafted an imaginary God who bestows the results of actions. Thus concealed under the cloak of belief in God, the atheistic karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy preached by the smārta-paṇditas has a strong following in India. One person's self interest often conflicts with another person's self interest.”

Bhaktivinoda continues, explaining that when a person of average intelligence hears the word unselfishness, he becomes attracted, for he thinks that by following the philosophy of unselfishness his own desires will be fulfilled. That is another reason the philosophy of atheistic materialism has become widespread...The atheist smārta-paṇditas in India accept the worship of God only to promote their atheist philosophy. If sometimes they accept the ideas if an afterlife and of a God who gives the results of actions, they accept these two ideas only a subordinate parts of their karma philosophy.

True devotion (bhakti) to God is never seen in such karmic philosophy. The philosophers known that in any agnostic moral system there will be corruption: unselfishness gradually turns into selfishness. Western philosophers like Kant and Hindu “karma” philosophers like Jaimini invent a kind of “God” exclusively to enforce the law of karma. They accept the existence of a single all- knowing God who gives the results of actions. Bhaktivinoda explains that these philosophers promote a conception of God merely to assure that good morality is rewarded and bad morality will be punished. They then quote many passages from scripture to show how the worship of God is a part of the karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy. In this way they accept an imaginary God. Kant, fearing that his moral imperative might not be taken seriously, imagined a God that would be considered real for the purpose of rewarding virtue and punishing vice and that God must exist to enforce the rule of law. Kant was more intellectually honest than Jaimini. And yet Kant's “moral philosophy” is a weak argument that never really convinced anyone.

His idea of the imaginary worship of God for moral purposes never attracted many followers. Since he was essentially agnostic, he didn’t really insist. His moral argument defending the existence of God didn’t convince many philosophers.

Jaimini, on the other hand, had a deeper understanding of human psychology. He was more farsighted than Kant in insisting on a God who would fulfill the laws of karma and therefore his karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy gained wide acceptance in the smārta-paṇdita community. In the end Kant and Jaimini held the same philosophy, the idea that an imaginary God is useful for enforcing morality and for rewarding “good karma.”

A close examination will reveal that neither the “moral imperative” of Kant or the karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy of Jaimini is tenable because they avoid a deeper understanding of conscious reality, the eternal nature of the self and God. Thus they are not in a position to bring true auspiciousness to human society.

Kant’s moral imperative is not sufficient for self-realization. Logical Positivism aims at auspiciousness for human society, but falls short, since it avoids fulfilling our true self-interest. A system of materialism that ignores spiritual reality can never satisfy our inner demand. In the same way, Jaimini’s ancient system of good karma, called karma-mīmāṁsā has no power to uproot sins.

All these external attempts at morality or “good karma” are doomed to fail, since they are not sincere. Good karma and bad karma are external to the problem of self-realization. With good karma we may be promoted to a higher position in the world of birth and death. And with bad karma we may be punished within the world of birth and death.

Conditioned life in the world of birth and death is often compared to imprisonment. It is not wise for a prisoner to think only of improving his condition. If a prisoner thinks, "I am in this cell—let me request the warden to change my cell, and I will be happy," that is a mistaken idea. One cannot be happy so long as he is within the prison walls. Our aim should be to become free from the "isms" that keep us conditioned, to become completely free from the "ism" of materialism.

True “good karma” is found only in devotional service to God. As long as karma continues to call itself good karma it is not a part of devotional service, since it invokes God only to enforce the results of karma. A true relationship with divinity cannot be earned through the merits of good works, but through mercy, through surrender, through divine love. When it is truly a part of devotional service, karma calls itself by the name bhakti.

Good karma or bad karma are both components of materialism. As long as it calls itself by the name karma karma is a rival of devotional service and it always tries to make itself more important than devotional service. Morality or good karma makes the claim that it helps philosophy, civilization, and art. but this is true only when transformed into bhakti.

Materialist morality is external to the true interest of the human soul. Since space and time cannot be known through materialism, we must go deeper.

Kant and other philosophers try to establish a reason for ethical action on the basis of the theory of “moral imperative,” but if there is no reaction to karma and no afterlife, then there is no need for morality. As Dostoyevsky put it, “If God doesn’t exist, everything is possible,” meaning no action is immoral.

And without morality human life is animal life. Unselfish materialism is not possible. The innate human tendency toward altruism is evidence of a higher ontological order. Rousseau believed that primitive man was more virtuous precisely because he was in touch with the natural morality that flows from the spiritual condition. There may be a natural unselfishness in man that tends toward altruism. But, if a “natural” unselfishness exists, it is only because our “natural” condition is that of living in harmony with God.

In a higher sense, SELF-ish-ness is natural. It is natural to be in touch with the SELF, our inner self. Self-realization is selfishness and is natural. But true self-realization means realizing ones SELF as part and parcel of the Eternal SELF or Paramatma. The highest form of self-realization is to find one’s self as a servant of the SUPREME Self. There is no such thing as materialistic unselfishness. Materialism teaches us to live by the law or the jungle, exploiting others in the rat-race of survival of the fittest.