Atheism and Meaning

Rationality and the Limits of Reason

As long as there has been philosophy, as soon as men crawled out of caves to wonder at the stars there have been those who negate the existence of divinity.

Atheism has always existed, dominating from time to time the thoughts of philosophers. The theory of atoms and the void so beloved by modern atheists was originally espoused by Kannada thousands of years ago. He in turn was copied by the Greeks like Demosthenes and later echoed by Oppenheimer, who knew the Bhagavad-Gita.

Buddhist temple, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Every wave is favorable, even the tsunami. Atheistic opposition has often served to enhance the position of theism. In the history of philosophy were many great thinkers who began as doubters, from Paul whose conversion took place on the road to Damascus to St. Augustine, who began his career in faith by doubting the existence of a God who would promote evil in the world and ended by penning the City of God there are many such examples. Saint Francis began his career as a spoiled rich brat. He ended as an emblem of poverty and humility who had found enlightenment in his faith. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, began as a soldier and became a soldier of God. The examples are too numerous of enemies of faith whose greatness was shown in its defense. I leave you with the most famous.

The 19th Century was a time of great conflict in terms of ideas. As Darwin worked to show there was no need for a supernatural cause for the origin of the species, Marx taught that history was class struggle and that the divine right of kings was a scheme by the wealthy to deprive the rights of the poor working classes. “Religion is the opium of the masses,” wrote Marx, enraged that his 7 children who lived in squalor, deprived of earthly bread were promised “pie in the sky when we die.” He raged against religion and God, cursing his fate.

Writing later in the 19th Century, Nietzsche famously decried the “Death of God.” It may unfair to accuse him of having the blood of God on his hands. His writing on the subject is a curious lament. Here’s an excerpt from his book “The Gay Science,” called “The Parable”

Nietzsche 

The Parable of the Madman: The Death of God

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

Head of Buddha

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this?

Ruins of pyramid, La Cañada de la Virgen, Mexico

"How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God?"

Olmec head Mexico

 "Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? "

Ruins of Angkor

With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

Stone heads of Angkor Wat

"It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

Russian Icon

As a philosopher, Nietzsche is writing at the end of the 19th Century, looking back at the accomplishments of his generation. His “parable” is a lament at the emptiness of rationalism. The great achievement of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason was to exile God and even individual consciousness from rational analysis. Given the cult of rationalism, this meant that God had been banned. Banishment and exile are a form of “Death.” Shakespeare asserts as much, “What is thy sentence then but speechless death?”

Ruins of Shankar Temple, India

In Nietzsche’s time God was speechless, incapable of reason, banished from polite discussion, a mad idiot in the basement. And who condemned God to such an ignominious death? Who was the assassin? God had been bled to death over generations by minds like Newton who forwarded the idea of the clockwork universe. The mechanistic paradigm allowed God to exist but only in the remotest of senses. He set the world moving as Aristotles “prime mover.” Perhaps he had invented the laws of material nature. But since the cosmic machine had been working fine ever since that long-forgotten moment the world has had no need of God.

20th Century Atheist Bertrand Russell

Such faith as was provided by the Deism of Newton was so insipid and pale that the thinkers of the 19th century saw a gradual cultural movement away from faith, embracing rationalism and science as a substitute. But just as the conspirators of ancient Rome who plunged daggers into the heart of the despotic Caesar found their leader in Brutus, the thinkers of 19th century Europe had a champion in Immanuel Kant.

Contemporary atheists like Dawkins and Hawking rejoice in the dry ruminations of Kant. Kant’s genius was his argument. He took great care to demolish the reasons for the existence of God with sharp arguments, twisting the dagger as he probed for the heart.

21st Century Atheist Steven Hawking

Kant concludes that there are no rational proofs for the existence of God, since God, if He exists must be transcendent and outside the proofs of reason. He cannot be the “object” of our reason, if he exists at all. The words “rational” and “reason” have reference only to the world of the senses. Since God exists beyond the world of the senses, he cannot be studied through reason. From this perspective, he can neither be the subject nor the object of rational study or analysis.

Immanuel Kant

Kant felt that reason has strict limits which exclude metaphysical reality, the existence of God and communion with God through faith. Rational proofs for the existence of God are not “proofs” so much as justifications or apologetics for faith with an internal logic for their noetic conclusions.

Although Nietzsche might have had him arrested for the crime, Kant was never convicted for attempted murder of the divinity. He even made a half-hearted attempted to revive the corpse with his “moral imperative.” He argued that since the purpose of religion is morality, and since we might derive morality from his ethical system, the purpose of religion would be fulfilled by philosophy. Since God’s purpose would be fulfilled, his memory would live on after His demise.

But few theologians are satisfied by Kant’s moral imperative. The party is over. The funeral has been held. Kant’s thinking cast a pall over philosophy that has yet to be lifted. He has left us with an epistemological divide between the noumenal and the phenomenology of the spirit, a split between the named world of the senses and the ontological reality of the Super-subject, the subject who cannot be made the object of our reason.

In the original and quintessential novel, Miguel Cervantes wrote that Alonso Quijano dried his brain by too much reading. He describes the process of how the famous Hidalgo bought and read too many books filled the fantastic stories of errant knights, bankrupting himself in the process and ending by drying his brain: "Es, pues, de saber, que este sobredicho hidalgo, los ratos que estaba ocioso (que eran los más del año) se daba a leer libros de caballerías con tanta afición y gusto, que olvidó casi de todo punto el ejercicio de la caza, y aun la administración de su hacienda; y llegó a tanto su curiosidad y desatino en esto, que vendió muchas hanegas de tierra de sembradura, para comprar libros de caballerías en que leer; y así llevó a su casa todos cuantos pudo haber dellos; y de todos ningunos le parecían tan bien como los que compuso el famoso Feliciano de Silva: porque la claridad de su prosa, y aquellas intrincadas razones suyas, le parecían de perlas; y más cuando llegaba a leer aquellos requiebros y cartas de desafío, donde en muchas partes hallaba escrito: la razón de la sinrazón que a mi razón se hace, de tal manera mi razón enflaquece, que con razón me quejo de la vuestra fermosura, y también cuando leía: los altos cielos que de vuestra divinidad divinamente con las estrellas se fortifican, y os hacen merecedora del merecimiento que merece la vuestra grandeza. Con estas y semejantes razones perdía el pobre caballero el juicio, y desvelábase por entenderlas, y desentrañarles el sentido, que no se lo sacara, ni las entendiera el mismo Aristóteles, si resucitara para sólo ello." (Quijote, I)

The above passage has bewildered readers for generations, just as it bewildered poor Alonso himself to the point of madness. “By reading these and similar passages the poor gentleman lost his judgment. In his mad attempt to unravel their sense (which even Aristotle would find obscure) he stayed up late at night and ended by going mad.”

I was asked to go through some of the ideas of the atheists with an eye to refuting them, and yet Kant and his disciples fill their books with statements like “la razón de la sinrazón que a mi razón se hace...” which translates as “the reason for my irrationality that my reasoning concludes...” To spend large chunks of time studying Kant would dry anyone’s brain. Kant’s rational materialism goes to great lengths to disqualify the principle of self-consiousness on epistemological grounds. The great German transcendentalist opines that since it cannot be thought of, it doesn’t exist.

His problem is something like the dilemma of the fish who tries to philosophize about the existence of water. Since water is invisible, the fish might say that “water doesn’t exist.” Materialism wants to subordinate consciousness to matter, to hold that matter creates consciousness. This is baseless. There is no evidence that matter produces consciousness.

The next best position is to claim that the question is unimportant or stands beyond the ability of reason and therefore useless. Since we cannot know through reason and argument if God exists, therefore he doesn’t exist. This is something like saying that since we cannot perform the music of Tchaikovsky on a Coca-Cola bottle, Tchaikovsky doesn’t exist. If the instrument doesn’t suit the music, we say that the music doesn’t exist. Reason is an idiom, suitable for sorting and ordering observable phenomena within human brain. To infer that what cannot be classified with a particular idiom has no existence is an argument peculiar to the 19th Century.

How is one to know or understand supra-material objects and their qualities through the rational process? Kant has no idea. He and his disciples appear content with the attempted murder of God. It never occurs to him that the reality above the world of the senses might be apprehended through a different form of instrumentation. If Kant is right, and we cannot learn through reason and argument if God exists beyond the bondage of human rational thought, then how can we know Him? What instrument is available to us, beyond reason?

Has God no power of self-revelation? If God exists,and if he is all-powerful, he must have the power of self-revelation. What is the mechanism through which self-revelation works? Or by what organic process is self-revelation unraveled? What can exist beyond reason?

Like fish who would deny the existence of water, philosophers delight in their genius to deny their own existence. Having discovered the limits of their own intelligence they accuse those for whom consciousness is self-evident of being ignorant. And yet, the existence of reality is self-evident and needs no proof. For those with an inkling of their own spiritual reality, proof is not needed. Those who are prejudiced against their own spiritual sense speak the language of delirium. Like the Quixote, their brains have dried up after having occupied themselves with too much word jugglery.

Kant’s craft was in shifting God out of consideration on wholly epistemological grounds. This leaves his metaphysics as not only agnostic but even filled with atheistic overtones. His so-called philosophy of religion is really an attack on the religions of his time. He seems intent on removing religion and theology from any serious academic discussion. His genius is shown in the fact that he was successful, especially in the West.

Eastern philosophy has a different take. For Eastern philosophy, especially the points of view that flow from the Vedanta and Upanishads, consciousness exists before and after reason and transcends the purely rational. The atma, the self, is a self-evident fact that must be taken into consideration before any attempt at ratiocination.

In Western philosophy and theology, one of the most robust attempts at a refutation of Kant has come from another German thinker: Rudolf Otto. Otto was a Lutheran theologian and scholar of comparative religion. He felt that despite the fact that one may speak of the functions or levles of consciousness, consciousness itself is beyond classification, irrational, “plainly strange,” “wholly other,” non-deducible, irreductable, and unclassifiable. Otto was intrigued by the mysticism he found in India as a student of Sanskrit and the Vishnu-bhakti of the Śrī-Vaiṣṇava school. He studied the system of qualified dualism promoted by Ramanuja and translated works on Vishnu-Narayana into German.

Otto's book The Idea of the Holy, is an important theological work, read by Catholics and Protestants alike. Since its publication in 1917 it has remained popular as a powerfully felt answer to Kant’s Critique.

Idea of the Holy promotes the idea of the “holy” as what he calls, “numinous.” In his attempt at explaining a self-evident mystical experience, he employs a special philosophical vocabulary. Otto’s numinous is a "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self".

His term derives from the Latin numen which means “divine power”. Oddly, he picks a term with echoes of Kant's noumenon, a Greek term referring to unknowable reality.

Rudolf Otto, mentor of Karl Barth, friend of Rabindranath Tagore

For Otto, the numinous or “intuitive divine mystic experience” is characterized by awe and reverence. Based on his insight into South Indian bhakti, this strange German philosophy teacher finds that an experience of God is characterized by a sense of mystery which he calls mysterium, awe and reverence or tremendum and fascination fascinans all at once.

Otto points out that the conscious state of awe and reverence achieved through mystic communion with the divine is beyond classification and cannot be understand rationally. The numinous, therefore, cannot be cognized.

Rudolf Otto, (25 September 1869 – 6 March 1937) worked and wrote after Nietzsche and ushered in much of the twentieth century reaction to the agnosticism of Kant and the atheism of Nietzsche. Darwin and Marx had made their impact. The ideals of Marx were taken up passionately by Lenin who tried to found a Communist society in Russia based on his teachings. The atheism of “Religion is the Opium of the masses,” was made official state doctrine by Lenin and Stalin in Russia and an entire generation was denied freedom of worship. Yet somehow theism and mysticism survived.

While the teachings of Kant, Nietzsche, Darwin and Marx had left an indelible impression on science, culture and politics, Rudolf Otto’s quiet views on mysticism influenced 20th Century Christian theism.

Theologican Karl Barth approved of Otto as did Freud’s rival Psycho-analist Karl Jung, who borrowed the idea of the “numinous.” Among theologians and philosophers influenced by Otto’s views were Paul Tillich, Martin Heidegger, and Joseph Needham.

Rudolf Otto mounted an effective defense against the materialistic rationalism of the 19th Century by forwarding the importance of “Religious mysticism.” His personal experience of mysticism was sparked by his contact with the Vaiṣṇavas of South India. He was fascinated with the model of worship he found there which stresses the awe and reverence of God. And yet his fascination with refuting Kant’s Critique by forwarding the “non-rational” element leads him to some insipid conclusions. Useful as his refutation may have been, his own mystic experience seems impoverished by comparison to true Vaiṣṇavism.

Otto’s idea of the Divine or Numinous resembles much more the Old Testament God of terror and awe than the beneficent sweetness of Reality the Beautiful as seen in the worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. His awe of God seems more akin to dread and ghost worship than to any loving relationship found in the bhakti tradition.

Otto stresses, mystery, terror, and fascination in the face of the Supreme Majesty of the Divine. And yet this is a superficial understanding of the Personality of Godhead. While he has found comfort in the mysticism of India, he has grounded his concept of divinity in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition where the Old Testament version conceives of God as the “All-powerful Father in Heaven,” and humankind as absolutely tainted with primordial sin. Since the Christians insist on the need for atonement of man’s sins through the blood of Christ, the mediation of Christ is essential for redemption. The gap between the Absolute Power of Divinity in the Fatherhood of God and the helplessness of man, fallen into sin, is tremendous and fearful. Otto finds only the virata-rupa of Krishna as seen in Bhagavad-gita brings forth the kind of terror that might correspond to the Christian Deity.

Rudolf Otto’s version of mysticism was helpful to many theists living and writing in the 20th century from Karl Barth to C.S. Lewis. But we can go deeper. As a competent linguist, Otto not only knew Sanskrit but also Bengali. He not only translated the Bhagavad-gita, The original Gita: The song of the Supreme Exalted One, London 1939 and was interested in the relationship between Christianity and bhakti, he also served as interpretor to Rabindranath Tagore during the latter’s visit to Marburg, Germany. However his version of bhakti falls short.

Otto has much to recommend him, especially in his noble attempt to revive God after the attempted murder by Kant. Still, he leaves many essential truths unexplained. His conception of divinity as “beyond reason” is valuable. The moderns first supported the “clockwork God” of Newton and finally rejected that Deistic Lord of the laws of nature as no longer useful. Otto tries to support the Fatherhood of Godhead, and yet he falls sort in dealing with the higher aspects of reality. The Fatherhood of Godhead as conceived by Otto may affirm Christ’s vision of a loving God,the idea that God loves his children but his version does little to explain man’s love for God. An object of terror cannot rightly be considered an object of love.

There is no need to define divinity exclusively in terms of terror, mystery, and fascination or mysterium, trememdum fascinatum, as does Otto. Otto seems to have been unable to understand God as Love, settling instead for terror and mystery.

And yet, history has given us many examples of saints in the mystic tradition of Christianity who claimed communion with the Love of God. Saint John Chrysostom achieves divine love through the holy name of Christ. Saint Francis, immersed in love, expresses love for all beings, including the most helpless animals. The experience of God as Love is not limited to the Christian world.

Rudolf Otto, fascinated by rationalism concentrates on the knowable aspects of divinity and terminates in terror. But in bhakti-yoga, God is experienced through divine love and dedication.

Nevertheless the give and take between atheists and theists have seen many variations on the them of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

Otto influenced the theologians of the 20th century, notably Karl Barth, and C.S. Lewis. While he finds “Fear” to be the basis of religious conviction, at least he feels that God is still alive enough to fear. His analysis of divinity may be useful as an answer to atheism, but is far from a healthy, developed view of enlightened consciousness, since it lacks joy. Fear and submission to God from awe and reverence may be superior to a complete lack of consciousness, but true communion with divinity should involve love, dedication, and voluntary self-abnegation.

In any case, atheistic opposition has resulted in the gradual and further elucidation of the theistic position. But although the opponents of theism have been silenced from time to time, they are not always really converted to the views of their rival. The rational materialist view sometimes appears to conquer all opposition until a mature and gifted protagonist of mystic realization reappears on the scene.

Otto was interested in bhakti, but true love of God is possible only in the absence of fear, of awe and reverence. And yet, while his definition of divinity lacks higher perspectives, Otto was useful in preserving and defending theism from the darkness of atheism.

The protagonists of rational materialism have made much of the need for conforming to an ontological model which excludes any metaphysics. They want us to speak of “being” while at the same time holding as an axiomatic truth our own “non-being.” Since consciousness, which exists outside the mind and creates the mind, cannot be proven rationally as a function of the mind, created by the mind, therefore it doesn’t exist. Or at least we are not allowed to speak of its existence. We merely hold the ontological reality of our own self in abeyance whilst discussing “being.” This is something like running a race with your shoelaces tied together. Before studying “being” I must be handicapped by denying my own “being,” as a prerequisite to study. I return to the Quixote: la razón de la sinrazón que a mi razón se hace...

The study of ontology is not for the faint-minded, who like the Quixote run the risk of drying up their brain-pan. Ontological discussion has the tendency to degenerate into meaningless affirmations on the meaning of being. In essence, ontology studies the nature of “Being.” In the words of the scandal-plagued Bill Clinton when he said, “there is no sexual relationship” the truth, “all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” As Heidegger put it, “Was ist das Seiende, das Seiende in seinen Sein?" as "What is being, what is beingness in its Being?”

For bhakti-yogis, being is self-evident and avoids these discussion. Post-modern rationalists, however, love nothing more than hair-splitting. The true mystic realization of being goes beyond discussion and hair-splitting and concludes in divine love.

Origins

Creation and the Problem of Consciousness

When Henry David Thoreau moved to Walden Pond in Concord Massachusetts in 1845 he wanted self-reflection:

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion."

Henry David Thoreau

One of the books he found especially useful in his quest was the Bhagavad-gita:

In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial."

At times I'm shocked and dismayed by the constant aggression and hatred I see in the world. At times like this I follow the mature counsel of Thoreau when he said, "Read not the Times. Read the Eternities." When I am alone and without the company of enlightened friends, I  find no solace greater than reading the "Eternities." The greatest of all these wisdom literatures is the Bhagavat.

I have spent some time sharing with you my own personal reading of the Bhagavat, but find myself involved in other projects at the moment. I haven't had the chance to write in this space. 

I've been asked to prepare materials on the nature of consciousness: a kind of reboot of Life comes from Life. We'll see what happens. It's a big project. 

But, since I'm involved in a book project on the nature of consciousness, I'm taking a break from the discussion between Śukadeva Goswāmī and Mahārāja Parīkṣita. 

Their conversation is highly worthy of reflection and meditation. Many readers of the Bhagavat prefer to rush to the 10th Canto and try to savor the intimate pastimes of the Bhagavan Śrī Krishna. But the ontology of the Bhagavat is not to be taken lightly.  The next point that Śukadeva discusses is a conversation between Lord Brahmā and Nārada Muni about the creation of the universe. Some adepts try to take every word of this great treatise literally. And yet the Bhagavat is a metaphysical work and one needs to appreciate carefully the metaphysics of its thesis.

I don't wish to blandly state ideas as facts. I find it offputting. And so, I'm consulting some of the wisdom literature and trying to understand more about the ontology and cosmology of the Bhagavat, which is distinct from the Vedic view. While the Vedic cosmology may take great interest in the movements of the planets, for astrological purposes, the Bhagavat eschews exploitation as a spiritual paradigm. 

The Bhagavat is not interested in a materialistic understanding of the planetary systems. My spiritual mentor, Śrīdhara Mahārāja, for example often referred to "Bhu-loka" as the "world of misconception."

Much of the language of the Bhagavat is secret, occult, and esoteric. The Sanskrit word "Loka" may be translated as "planet" but it also means "world," "country," and even "people." The House of Commons in India is known as the Lok Sabha, the House of the People.
http://loksabha.nic.in

The Bhagavat speaks of different "Worlds" or Lokas. There are hellish worlds and heavenly worlds. But since the Bhagavat concentrates on consciousness and divine love as its main thesis, it may be useful for us to consider these worlds as planes of consciousness.  The Bhagavat after all identifies itself as commentary on the Gayatri mantra which meditates on the planes of consciousness known as bhur, bhuvah, and svah, or sense, mind, and intelligence. 

So when Nārada and Brahmā discuss the creation of worlds, they are not speaking with reference to the materialistic paradigm developed by positivists like Comte in the 19th Century.  The holistic paradigm of Bhagavat ontology always includes consciousness as an axiomatic truth. As commentary on Vedānta, the Bhagavat paradigm incorporates an understanding of Brahman, Paramātma, and Bhāgavan as requisites for a proper interpretation of monism and dualism. This is supported by the exegesis of Chaitanya Mahāprabhu, whose acintya-bheda-bheda-tattva  philosophy is elucided by Jiva Goswāmi in Tattva-sandarbha.

Given all that, I don't want to write superficially on the subject. 

These days there's a very active school of atheists who feel that the battle of "belief" vs. "nonbelief" is really a battle between "reason" and "superstition." This is a superficial view, in my opinion. Any ideas on creation that don't correspond to the currently held views are held up to ridicule as an example of "superstition" or "myth." 

Unfortunately modern atheists are not trained as philosophers or they would know the limits of reason. 

Undisputed facts are difficult to arrive at. History is even more difficult. The history of creation would seem to be utterly impossible.  And yet certain mysteries elude science: The origin of the universe, gravity waves, a cure for cancer, the unified field theory, a theory of everything.  

The problem of consciousness is one such mystery. 

Much has been made of the search for the “original building blocks of life.” The Rosetta project recently sent a space probe to a distant comet in search of the so-called “origins of life.” There is no need for journey to distant planets to find the “origins of life.” The origins of life are found in every egg or seed here on earth. And yet, no scientist can produce an egg.

No biologist would claim that he has created a seed. Monsanto, of course, goes about the business of patenting seeds as if seeds were possible to create. It is a practical matter to remove or insert some genetic material into a seed and change its genetic composition. But the genetic material must come from a living plant. Life comes from life. The origin of life, according to anyone’s observation is other life. One can not create a life form with inert material ingredients. This may be considered as another “law” of material nature: Inorganic matter cannot produce life.



No biologist can take inorganic ingredients and create an egg.    Not an ostrich egg, not a lizard egg, not a chicken egg, not even a hummingbird egg.

The sum total of the finite will never equal the infinite. Organs are not life. Blood is not life. You may harvest all the organs, blood, bone, and nerves you like from dead bodies. You will never produce a living Frankenstein monster by charging a cadaver with electricity.

The world of matter is confirmed by the senses and discussed by the rational faculties of the human brain. And yet, such senses are unable to perceive the higher reality.  Unable to perceive spiritual reality  the senses would convince us that the perceived reality is the only reality. But this is presumptuous.

Our senses are, after all, imperfect. Scientists must constantly revise their calculations. Even our best computer software is constantly being "updated," since the previous version, even the actual version is somehow faulty. There are always "bugs" to be "fixed." We are subject to all kinds of illusions, tricks of material nature. We see a dark figure move in the shadows only to find that it's a chair. We make mistakes. And we have the tendency to fit the facts around our theories. All these work against the science of reason.

And worse. Reason itself is a circular argument. There is no such thing as impartiality according to philosophers from the time of Nietzsche. All reasoning is self-serving. Our preoccupation with the  secrets of the material world is self-serving: we want to control and exploit the world of the senses. Exploitation is almost the exclusive activity of reason.  Reason is useful because it works in tandem with science to produce new discoveries, new technologies. And the very purpose of technology is exploitation. 

The focus on the exploitation of the world of the senses is a paradigm that has served us well for centuries. But now the karmic boomerang is coming to haunt us in the form of contaminated air, polluted oceans, devastated habitats and extinct species. Can this really be the culmination of science?



Our exclusive preoccupation with the exploitation of the sensual world has led to a denial of the suprasensual world, the world of transcendence. And yet the great thinkers in science are satisfied by a faithful repetition of formulas left to us by the Victorian age. This is merely the jealous conservation of dead and dying formulas.

I believe it's possible to seek a deeper metaphor for existence in the pages of the Bhagavat and in the conversations between Nārada and Brahmā. 

It may be that the language used in the Bhagavat to describe the sensual cosmos evades our comprehension. We lack the exegetical tools to penetrate some of the descriptive metaphors.  The hermeneutics of the acharyas are available only to highly realized souls.

And yet the organic metaphor is enlightening. The cosmos with its galaxies is compared to an egg, where barely differentiated consciousness combines with the potentiality of matter in a concentrated form of energy unknown to modern physicists.

Quantum Astronomers cannot decode the energies responsible for the singularity that may have existed in the moments before the Big Bang. Nor can they account for the conceptual form of substance known as consciousness. 

The conversations in the Bhagavat explore the eternal paradox of consciousness and its relationship with the perceived world, how divine and unlimited consciousness represents itself in limited forms and bodies, conditioned minds and senses. And how the Personal Godhead expands through various agencies and potencies, from Bhagavan, through Mahavishnu to Paramātma to the transcendent, indefinable and spaceless Being who makes  time, space and the cosmos possible.

Taking a break

Dear Readers:

As you may have noticed I'm taking a break from blogging for a few weeks. As you know I'm involved in education. Apart from my duties at the University of Guanajuato I write this blog, screenplays, scenarios, and I'm working on a couple of book projects, including a new version of Mahabharata.  I've been asked to work on some other creative projects involving a new look at science and consciousness, and my time has been divided between writing and my work as a teacher.  In order to keep up with the literature I also have to do a certain amount of investigation. I love writing the blog, but I just can't find the time right now. I'm considering a new format. I'll be back soon with a new series of articles and a new take. Thanks for reading. Mahayogi.

Infinite Minus Infinite is Infinite...

INFINITE DIVIDED BY INFINITE?

Inspired by the Questions of Śaunaka, Suta Continues

Suta looked deeply within himself. He reflected for a moment, cleared his throat, and began:

“Mahārāja Parīkṣit began his life as the son of Uttarā burned in the womb by the fire weapon of the envious Aśvatthama. That weapon would have burned him to death if Kṛṣṇa Himself had not intervened. Now, after hearing atma-tattva from the esteemed Śukadeva that king meditated fully upon Lord Kṛṣṇa.

At the time of death, most men do their best to enjoy every last moment with their adoring wife and family. But Mahārāja Parīkṣit was moved by transcendental knowledge and divine love. So inspired, he left behind his love for all things of this world, including even his own body. His affection for his wife, his children, and his family evaporated. Inspired by divine love, he had no interest in his royal opulence, his wealth, his palace and army, or even his favorite horses and elephants. He no longer had any interest in friends and relatives, or even his throne of empire.

Suta said, “Esteemed friends: the king on the cusp of death was deep in the rapture of divine love. He left behind all mundane forms of dharma, artha, kāma, and even “salvation.” In this way he became firmly fixed in divine love for Kṛṣṇa. So absorbed, he put his questions to Śukadeva, much in the same way as Śaunaka here has put his questions to me.”

Suta continued, “And that great king actually attained perfection through listening. He had great respect for Śukadeva. Sitting before that sixteen-year-old boy, Mahārāja Parīkṣit spoke as follows.”

“King Parīkṣita said, ‘My dear brāhmaṇa, as a pure soul you know past, present, and future. Your words are true. Your speech enlightens the dark night of my soul, for you speak of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, reality the beautiful. I feel enlightened just by listening to you. Your speech is food for my hungry soul. Please continue. Tell me of the creation, of the origin of these worlds. Even the gods cannot conceive of the unlimited cosmos. How does the Godhead, by His personal energies, create all these universes?

“I am curious,” the King said. “How does the Absolute, who is By Himself and For Himself, unfold and unwind these worlds through his energies? How does he dissolve the phenomenal worlds and again manifest them? It seems to me that He plays with the universe as a child plays with toys. How does He engage different personal expansions and mystical powers in the creation and expansion of the physical cosmos?”

“I know this is all beyond my ability to understand, but I wonder at these supernatural acts of God. It think it must be inconceivable because even the best minds fail to understand them. And yet, you seem supremely qualified and divinely inspired.

Infinite from Infinite leaves Infinite

“I understand that The Infinite is always Infinite, whether He exists beyond this creation or interacts with the modes of material nature.

“If the infinite is subtracted from the infinite, it remains infinite. This is difficult for me to understand.

“And if the infinite is divided and simultaneously expands in myriads of forms and avatars, He still remains transcendentally situated in His Original Form as the Personality of Godhead. This is inconceivable.

“’Then again, even if the Infinite Absolute expands again and again to conduct the the physical manifestation through the modes of nature, He is still Infinite. I’m not sure I know how to explain all this properly. ‘

“Mahārāja Parīkṣita said, “’The ways of God are inconceivable even to highly learned scholars. I am only a king, a mere politician, condemned to spend time with warriors, with women and with weapons. Your weapons are knowledge, and you are well-armed. Please explain these things to me clearly. Not only are you the son of Vyāsa himself, not only are you trained in the inner meaning of the Vedas by their very author, not only are you self-realized in transcendence: but you are also a great devotee of the Lord. For me, you are as good as the Personality of Godhead Himself, for you are blessed with all divine mercy to explain such conclusions, and I am eager to hear from you.’”

Sūta Gosvāmī said: “When the King asked Śukadeva to explain the divine creative power of God, he fell silent for a while. He knew that the power of speech was given to him only by God. If his words were to have any meaning he would need to become His instrument. He prayed deeply to God, as “Controller of the Senses,” and concentrated on Śrī Kṛṣṇa. He prayed for the mercy to speak correctly and spoke as follows.

“Śukadeva said,

श्रीशुक उवाच

नमः परस्मै पुरुषाय भूयसे सदुद्भवस्थाननिरोधलीलया

गृहीतशक्तित्रितयाय देहिनाम् अन्तर्भवायानुपलक्ष्यवर्त्मने

śrī-śuka uvāca

namaḥ parasmai puruṣāya bhūyase

sad-udbhava-sthāna-nirodha-līlayā

gṛhīta-śakti-tritayāya dehinām

antarbhavāyānupalakṣya-vartmane

Balm for the Soul

Discussions: Mundane and Divine

In the forest of Naimisharanya, Suta had been speaking at great length about the curse of the dying king Pariksita and the boy sage Shukadeva, who spoke soul-soothing words of comfort. And as he told the story, he did not tire. All heard carefully. That great sage, disciple of Vyāsa who had already narrated the entire Mahābhārata continued:

“Śrī Shukadev said: ‘O King. Maharaj Parīkṣit, as you have inquired from me as to the duty of the intelligent man who is on the threshold of death, so I have answered you. There are different classes of men at different stages of development in terms of their consciousness.

There is gradation everywhere. Some want material success, others want salvation, still others think of liberation in terms of becoming one with the absolute. There are many different so-called religious practices one may perform for different results. You will find different recommendations in different scriptures. They all attain their different results according to their religious practice. And yet, a person who has reached a higher level of consciousness may achieve whatever he wants through bhakti-yoga, by dedicating himself to the Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

अकामः सर्वकामो वा मोक्षकाम उदारधीः

तीव्रेण भक्तियोगेन यजेत पुरुषं परम्

akāmaḥ sarva-kāmo vā mokṣa-kāma udāra-dhīḥ

tīvreṇa bhakti-yogena yajeta puruṣaṁ param SB 2.3.10)

“’The best religious practice therefore, is that of divine love.

एतावान् एव यजताम् इह निःश्रेयसोदयः

भगवत्य् अचलो भावो यद् भागवतसङ्गतः

etāvān eva yajatām iha niḥśreyasodayaḥ

bhagavaty acalo bhāvo yad bhāgavata-saṅgataḥ

“’Leaving aside questions about which religious practice is best, think of the value of being in the company of great souls. In fact, the association of a saintly devotee, a true bhāgavata, awards all benediction on all kinds of worshipers. In fact, all different religious worshipers can attain the highest benediction of divine love simply by keeping company with a pure devotee of the Lord. (2.3.11)

ज्ञानं यद् आप्रतिनिवृत्तगुणोर्मिचक्रम्

आत्मप्रसाद उत यत्र गुणेष्व् असङ्गः

कैवल्यसम्मतपथस् त्व् अथ भक्तियोगः

को निर्वृतो हरिकथासु रतिं न कुर्यात्

jñānaṁ yad āpratinivṛtta-guṇormi-cakram ātma-prasāda uta yatra guṇeṣv asaṅgaḥ kaivalya-sammata-pathas tv atha bhakti-yogaḥ ko nirvṛto hari-kathāsu ratiṁ na kuryāt

(SB 2.3.12)

“’All these questions are interesting, but we want real knowledge, which benefits all religious faiths.

“’Who could fail to be attracted by real knowledge?’ said Shukadeva. ‘Transcendental knowledge means ending the waves and whirlpools of the world of misconception. Transcendental knowledge means pure consciousness in relation with the Supreme Lord Hari. Saints and sages consider this knowledge as true self-realization, free from material attachment. ‘“

Suta Goswāmi paused. The story of Śukadeva and Parīkṣita held all the sages who heard it in rapt attention. Astonished, they sat quietly and listened as Suta recalled that great conversation. Here was indeed satisfying balm for the soul.

After a time, the sun moved lower in the heavens. The saints gathered there reflected on the words of Śukadeva. Their leader, who had been chosen for his sagacity, cleared his throat.

Śaunaka said, “O vastly learned Suta. Vyasa’s son was a highly learned sage and poet. What further questions did that king have after hearing all that he had said? We know you are only beginning. Please continue. We are all eager to hear more. This assembly is pleased by your discourse. Transcendentalists everywhere appreciate hearing about Lord Hari. We have heard of Parīkṣit, the grandson of the Pandavas. That great king was a krishna-bhakta from childhood.”

As Śaunaka spoke, he became more animated. He said, “Even as a boy the young prince would imitate the worship of Krishna, at play with dolls. While Śukadeva the son of Vyāsadeva, was not only full in wisdom but also a great devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva.

“You can’t stop with these simple ideas about worship, as profound as they may be. We want to hear more. In their conversation there must have a deeper discussion of Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is glorified by great philosophers and in the company of great devotees.

“Your discourse is highly auspicious. We want to hear more.

“O Suta, this is true conversation, for it enlivens the soul.

“There are so many mundane subjects for conversation, but here we can hear the truth. Both by rising and by setting, the sun decreases the duration of life of everyone, except for one such as your good self, who spends his time by teaching the stories of Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

“Some might call ordinary life living; but even trees live, don’t they?

“As for breath, the blacksmith’s bellows breathe. The birds and beasts eat, sleep, mate, and defend themselves. What distinguishes human life, if not the ability to contemplate the divine?

Śaunaka became more excited. His eyes twinkled and gleamed with delight. “I would go so far as to say that those men who never listen to the transcendental pastimes of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the deliverer from evils are like dogs, hogs, camels and asses! One who has not listened to the amazing deeds of Śrī Kṛṣṇa the Personality of Godhead, one who never sings the glories of the Lord has earholes like the holes of snakes!”

“Why, his tongue is the tongue of a frog who croaks to call the snakes of death closer. His finely turbaned head is a hat-rack only, if not bowed down before the Lord. And his hands, may have fine bracelets but they are like the hands of a corpse if used in the service of the Personality of Godhead Hari.”

The sages nodded their heads in agreement. They were hungry to hear more. Śaunaka said, “Why, my dear Suta, eyes that never see His holy form are like the eyes on peacock feathers and legs that never visit holy places are mere tree trunks.” The sages smiled.

Śaunaka said, “One who has never taken dust of a devotee’s feet on his head, or has never savored the aroma of a tulasī leaf is dead while breathing.”

Śaunaka stood up and looked around him, casting his glance on the assembly as if to see who there might dare disagree with his empassioned words. “Stone-hearted are they whose hearts are not moved in ecstasy when chanting the holy name of the God: Hare Krishna!” The devotees there smiled.

“O Sūta Gosvāmī, your words are pleasing to our minds. Recite the holy Bhāgavata to us just as it was spoken by Śukadeva Gosvāmī, to Mahārāja Parīkṣit. This is my humble request, speaking on behalf of all the great saints gathered here.”

Suta Goswāmī bowed his head before the assembly. He was humbled by the praise of the learned Śaunaka. He concentrated deeply and did his best to remember the divine conversation between Śukadeva and the King.

Simple Living and Divine Meditation

Simple Living, and Divine Meditation

Since Pantheism is ultimately a shallow view of the divine, Śukadeva Goswāmī begins to take the conversation deeper. He observes that the creator of the universe, the four-headed Lord Brahmā, after awakening from a long sleep, rekindled his dormant remembrance of God by meditating on the Universal form. Once having achieved enlightenment again, he set about recreating the cosmos as it was before. 

 In this way, his forgetfulness was transcended. As we are all prone to forgetfulness, we may learn from the example of the creator. This world of names bewilders our intelligence. Even the Vedas which were given by Śukadeva’s father to lead us from the wilderness offers confusing promises about the afterlife. Led on by false promises of heaven, common men strive after karmic deeds of great proposition. But endless karma in the circle of birth and death leads nowhere but to the grave.

“O King,” said Śukadeva, “Make your life simple. The enlightened soul should strive for no more than needed in this world of names. Be fixed in divine intelligence. Let God be your guide. Why work hard for nothing in this world of misunderstanding when we must leave everything behind?”

“O King,” said the boy, his lotus eyes unblinking, “What need is there for a royal bed and pillows of silk, when one has the soft earth for a bed and arms for pillows? Why do we need gold an silver spoons when we can use our fingers for eating? 

What need is there for fine embroidered cloth, when the skins of trees will do for covering our bodies? And if we must have rags to wear, are there no rags lying in the street? Have the trees stopped bearing fruits? Do the rivers no longer flow and give their waters to the thirsty? Have the mountain caves closed up their mouths? Do they no longer offer shelter to the wise men who seek refuge there? 

Does God no longer shelter the surrender souls? Why then do we need strive for wealth? Live simply. Have faith. Why work so hard for nothing in this world of woe when we must leave it all behind?

“I know that sometimes saints and sages fall prey to insecurity. They sometimes worship wealthy donors and flatter men who are intoxicated by gold and silver. You have seen such men. But the renounced order of life is not for parasites and sycophants. Have firm conviction on the path and do not waver. Live a simple life. If you are hungry you can find a generous tree with ample fruits. When you are thirsty you may find a river. There is no need to live like a hypocrite. Try to see the Lord in the heart.

“He is there. He is within you. By living such a simple life, dedicated to this meditation, gradually you will understand: the Lord is in the heart. Serve Him. Understand your soul and see God in the Universe. Meditate and you will find Him in your heart. Serve Him and you will see: the eternal unlimited Bhagavan will make Himself known to you. He is the ultimate goal of life. Do bhajan to Him and become free from this saṃsāra.”

“Only a fool will reject this advice and go on living in this temporary dream-world of names, this world of misconception. Look around and you will see so many souls lost in the river of misunderstanding, drowning in their own karma. But those who are wise in the ways of transcendence rise above this world of misery. 

Leaving aside all superficial meditations, they see the fourhanded Lord Himself in 8-inch area of the heart; He holds the lotus, the chakra, conch. and club. His eyes are like lotus petals and His lotus mouth is joy; adorned with golden cloth and flowers He shines, bedecked with jewels. Remember this transcendental form. I shall describe more in due time.”