Recent Disussion

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Here are some thoughts mostly based on my experience and what I have

learned or at least what makes sense to me at present:

 

Since this forum is for the discussion of Jyotish I think it is fair

to say that we may all have at least one common ground -- an

understanding of the connected-ness & inter-relatedness of all

things. And that there is orderliness inherent to the whole - all

things within the whole are governed by natural laws. This is not

something that requires a lot of faith as it is something for which

there is scientific proof. And for those of us familiar with

Jyotish we are certainly aware of both the interrelated-ness of all

things and that their is order that governs their interaction.

 

There is no one existing in isolation separated from the whole. No

experiment is ever truly done in isolation, the surroundings always

play a part and are affected as well. On the ides of March, NPR

(National Public Radio) did a small piece on how if you take a deep

breath right now, at least one of the molecules entering your lungs

literally came from Caesar's last breath

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5280420].

 

That is just one very small example of how connected we are

physically. The great western scientist Einstein has stated "A

human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part

limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and

feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical

delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for

us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a

few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from

this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all

living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

 

I see this as not a romantic notion, but one that stems from

rational observation & logic. Einstein also stated "The further the

spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems

to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the

fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through

striving after rational knowledge."

 

Einstein also agreed that:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It

is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this

emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand

rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

 

In my experience rational knowledge leads to not a belief in

the "Divine", but in fact a certainty that the "Divine" is. And to

me "Divine", "Creator", "God", "Absolute", "Truth", "Tao", "Ishwara",

"Nature" are the same, differing only as words. Therefor, it

always seems strange for one to state that they do not believe

in "God", but believe in the "Divine". It must be that for them

these two words have different meanings. Perhaps it is just a

matter of one word having a more impersonal connotation.

 

Starting from the standpoint of the acknowledgment of connected-ness

of all things and orderliness of the whole of creation, an awareness

of the "divine" can be developed. One can see by observation and

logic that one's situation is not centered on one's own will or even

on his own understanding. The order, the world, in not created by

the individual, the individual is born into it, the individual is

part of this universe – an integral part. Because the whole, the

order of which we are part, is not created by us, we can appreciate

its creator to be a "being" who is all-knowing, a being we can

call "God" or whatever. The fact that there is a creation

logically leads us to conclude that there is a creator. Not

necessarily a human-like figure sitting on a cloud, but certainly a

Creator – an Originating Cause. The Creator can not be "out there",

outside of the whole of creation as there is no place outside of the

whole. It only stands up to logic that such a creator is one with

the whole the creation – such a creator must be All, "Absolute".

The knowledge of such a creator includes our knowledge. The power

of such a creator includes our power. Such a creator is All. It

is this Creator that we pray to whether we are using another name or

whatever. Perhaps the main point of disagreement is language, the

language of "God", "Lord", vs. a more scientific term

like "universal order". But, certainly, it seems understanding is

increasing to the point where scientific names will be developed for

what is essentially the same as what we have all commonly referred

to as "God" all along. To me science is not refuting that God

exists, but rather revealing more of the nature of God. The nature

of Nature.

 

I agree that any notion that a particular idea of God or a

particular historical figure should be the one that EVERYONE should

accept as "God" is, at the very least, not based in any kind of

logic or rational observation. However, to pray to "God" is not at

all illogical to me. It stems from the logical understanding that

there is a larger guiding force than just the "self".

 

"One has to see the beauty of prayer. There is no meditation, no

ritual, without prayer. There is no technique which can replace

prayer because in any technique the will is retained. Here, the

will willingly submits. That submission performs the miracle." -

Swami Dayananda Saraswati

 

Because of the nature of "God", the creator, is logically all-

pervasive one can pray anywhere in anyway that resonates best with

the individual. Most people can relate easier to a more tenable form

whether that be an individual form, or an object or an idea, ect.

One can get someone's attention by tugging on any part of their

robe, likewise the whole can be accessed through any of its parts.

So please let us not judge each other's religion. If one receives

experience of the "divine" and solace through a particular form of

prayer/worship/ritual then who cares what it looks like to others.

Perhaps one would be more willing accept the worship of Krishna if

it was stated as "the worship of the Divine as manifested in

Krishna." One can go to any altar to seek help from the Divine. But

one need not go to any altar to seek help from the Divine. Freely

we can go to the source. I is a matter if acknowledging our

helplessness and seeking help through prayer. Divinity can not be

limited to particular moments or objects.

 

When one looks at one's birth chart and recognizes that there are

things one can not change; when one recognizes that one's will is

the not sole driving force of one's destiny and submits to this

reality --- then to me this is a recognition of the existence

of "God" and it in essence the same as prayer. Whether one has a

stated belief in "God" or not does not matter. Whether one terms

it a "spiritual realization" or a "logical insight" is also of

little importance. To be guided by faith or by logic/rational

thought will eventually get you to the same understanding. Truth is

truth. One can take something on faith that seems illogical and

later come to understand the logic in it. It is not always

necessary to have to understand something first before accepting and

acting on it. There are many things that we don't understand,

bright as we are. We don't have to understand them for them to be

real.

 

Further, logic/ rational thought is in fact dependent on awareness.

Awareness is not something we, as individuals, can be credited for

creating, nor can we take credit for the intricate workings of our

physical form. Something bigger than the "self" did this for us.

As logic is an utterly dependent entity, I don't think it should be

looked to as the best guiding force man has. It is certainly a

useful tool, though.

 

It is not necessary to work things out & experience things for

oneself all the time – to do so would be incredibly time consuming –

this I think is "learning the hard way", which, by the way, is what

I have done most of the time. One can either take it by faith that

fire will burn and therefor avoid contact with it, or one can

experience it directly and suffer accordingly.

 

To me same is true of the teaching of the great souls like Jesus

Christ, Buddha, Krishna, ect. We have a record of their teaching

and whether or not we follow the teaching or not, the truth of it

will be revealed to us in time. In my view they shared their

understanding to help us avoid suffering, whether we take the help

or not is our choice.

 

I think there is something to be said for having faith in those wise

ones that have come before us and to put into practice what they

have taught and showed by example even if it may seem illogical at

present. In this way one does not have to experience the same

difficulty of those that came before them. Of course, going

on "faith" alone can be treacherous if one has coupled their faith

with expectations.

 

And the pursuit of knowledge will certainly get one there

eventually – this is what Confucius taught in the Great Learning:

 

"Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their

knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their

thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their

hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons

being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families

being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states

being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and

happy."

 

Certainly, all of us are on this path already- no action is needed

on our part to get on the path of knowledge – it is not a path that

one gets on or off of. We all are constantly investigating things

and accumulating the knowledge born of experience. Though,

sometimes we get stuck not willing to change our attitude or

approach and therefor experience the same reulsts over and over.

Life is given to us, results of actions come to us, all we do is

learn to control how we respond to what is given. Things have

already been set in motion- "we can't turn back and we can't stand

still." But we have ownership of our response to what life brings

us. If someone hurts us then there is nothing we can do to change

what has happened. Would hurting them back erase what they did to

us? Likewise, would holding a grudge change what happened-- would

ANYTHING change what happened? At best we can only control our

present response to life and in this way affect our future, but the

past seems to have a tight hold on each of us.

 

"Whatever has happened is a fact. I cannot but accept it. My

rejection does not change the fact or negate it. I accept

gracefully and blame no one. All that I seek is the maturity, the

clarity, a space in myself from where I gracefully accept what I

cannot change.

 

"I also seek help for adequate will in order to bring about changes,

desirable changes – in my attitudes towards people, towards money,

towards the future, towards my health, my body and my skills –

healthy proper attitudes. If I have to bring about any other change

or if I have to apply myself to learn more.

 

"O Lord, please give me the unflinching will, the will that holds

against all odds, an unflinching will to change. May I also have

the knowledge to know what I can and cannot change, knowledge that

helps me to accept what I cannot change. Once I know something

cannot be changed, I can accept it. And once I know I can change, I

can do what has to be done. May I have this knowledge."

 

- Swami Dayananda Saraswati

 

I would not be writing if I didn't have personal experience with the

miracle of prayer. Perhaps it is an individual experience that does

not resonate with everyone, but that does not stop one from wanting

to share with others. And whether the acceptance that develops from

prayer is what creates the space that allows for change or it is

Divine grace that allows for change is a moot point to me as I do

not see them as separate things.

 

Take it easy,

Sean