YOU, ME & GOD-exemplary

[Guest guest]

HARI AUM

 

Swamiji is par excellent in explaining the 'difficult'

with biblical simplicity.

 

An exemplary contribution to the forum.

Thanks Shree Krishna prasadji.

 

Regards

 

Balagopal

 

NARAYANA NARAYANA NARAYANA

 

 

--- Krishna Prasad <krishna.yoga wrote:

 

> YOU, ME & GOD

> ------------------------------

>

>

> *POOJYA GURUDEV SWAMI CHINMAYANANDA*

>

> * " Swamiji, I don't believe in God " .*

> Source:

> http://www.chinmaya-chicago.org/god.htm

>

> *It was a young man, modern, tight pants, tobacco

> pipe stuck at waist, trim

> thin moustache. He spoke Emglish with an

> Americanized drawl, and was

> evidently one of our university products, with

> higher education abroad.

> Sophisticated, to the points of his pointed toes.*

>

> *Swamiji beamed. " Excellent! " With a broad welcoming

> smile, nodding his head

> slowly, Swamiji continued: " That's fine. I like you.

> You are the man I have

> been wanting to meet. I like your outspokenness. You

> are intelligent and you

> think independently. You have the courage to speak

> out your conviction,

> straight from the shoulder, as they say. Now come,

> WHAT KIND of GOD is it,

> that you don't believe in? " *

>

> *The young man, who had made his statement about his

> non-believing, with a

> little hesitation, probably at his own audacity at

> denying GOD before a

> God-man, was pleasantly surprised at Swamiji's

> cordial tone and benign

> smile, and, feeling encouraged, went on:*

>

> * " This God, who sits above the clouds, and judges

> men, and dispenses favours

> and punishments by remote-control, at his own sweet

> will, don't you think

> Swamiji, it is all hocus pocus? " *

>

> *Swamiji laughed. " Shake hands, young man. I am

> entirely with you. Now, we

> are two, together. I too, don't believe in THAT KIND

> OF GOD. But........hmm,

> did ypu have breakfast before coming? " *

>

> * " Yes, Swamiji. " *

>

> * " Well, What did you have for breakfast? " *

>

> * " The usual things, porridge, toast, scrambled eggs,

> coffee.... " *

>

> * " Eggs. That's nice. Eggs! Now, where did the eggs

> come from Ram, that's

> your name isn't it? " *

>

> *Ram, with his brows raised, feeling that Swamiji

> was leading upto

> something, said: " I don't exactly know, probably

> one of those new poultry

> farms near *

>

> *Poona " .*

>

> *Swamiji: " I don't mean that. How are eggs made? Do

> they grow in fields, or

> are they made in factories? " *

>

> * " Simple. I think you are trying to pull my legs,

> but all the same I'll

> answer you. Hens, of course. Hens lay eggs, you

> know! " Ram said with an air

> of flippancy. Nodding his head, up and down,

> thoughtfully, Swamiji

> Continued: " I see, I see, so the eggs come from

> hens. Now where do the hens

> come from? " *

>

> *Ram, an intelligent man, could see the trap he was

> being led into. He

> started saying: " Ofcourse from..... " . Then wide

> eyed, looked at Swamiji

> silently. Swamiji smiled: " So, eggs come from hens,

> hens come from eggs,

> which again come from other hens, and so on,

> ad-infinitum. Can you, Ram, say

> with any certainty, which was the first cause? Egg

> or hen? How and why?*

>

> *Swamiji, now addressing all the devotees present,

> went on: " You see, God is

> not just a person or individual, sitting in a palace

> above the clouds,

> dispensing favours. It stands to reason that every

> effect must have had a

> cause prior to it. The watch that you are wearing

> did not make itself. Your

> breakfast did not cook itself. There was a cause, in

> each case. The cause

> must have emerged from a previous cause. GOD is now

> the first cause. The

> sole cause. The UNCAUSED CAUSE. There was no cause

> before Him. He is the

> oldest, the most ancient, He was before TIME. The

> Sanaatanah, the Puraanah.

> This `Causation hunting' is the favourite pastime of

> the evolving human

> intellect -- trying to trace everything to its

> ultimate origin. That which

> is beyond the point at which the intellect gets

> stalled, is G-O-D. The

> intellect cannot come to a conclusion as to the

> ultimate cause as in the age

> - old example of the hen and the egg. `Thus far --

> not farther' is the

> limitation of the capacity of the human intellect. " *

>

> *Ram was flushed with excitement. He was thrilled.

> In a faltering voice he

> asked " There does seem to be something in what you

> say, Swamiji. Am I to

> understand that THAT is God? " *

>

> * " That, which you now speak of as GOD, my boy, the

> muslim calls Allah; the

> christian refers to as " My father in Heaven " ; the

> Parsee as Ahura Mazda.

> These are a few of the different ways in which HE or

> IT is referred to, but

> all are referring to the SAME SUPREME PRINCIPLE. The

> cause behind all

> causes. The source of all that was, now is, and ever

> will be. The Vedas

> refer to it as BRAHMAN, the Absolute, the infinite.

> THE TRUTH IS ONE. THE

> WISE SPEAK OF IT VARIOUSLY. " *

>

> * " But, Swamiji, the description does not seem to be

> complete. Is that all

> that God is? How can one come to know Him? " *

>

> * " Now, you are really getting somewhere. I have not

> `described' God. He

> cannot be described. To define is Him is to defile

> Him. What I pointed out

> only constitutes one way, one manner, of approaching

> the Truth. It is just

> one aspect. Now, Your second question asks `How can

> one come to know Him?' *

>

> *`Know him!' He cannot be `known' as you know this

> table or this chair or

> your wife or your pipe. He is not an object of the

> intellect. He is the VERY

> SUBJECT. Have you heard of the great disciple of the

> Kenopanishad who

> approached the Master and enquired : " Revered Sir,

> What is IT, directed by

> which the mind cognizes objects, the eyes see, the

> ears hear and so on?' The

> master cryptically answered : " It is the eye of the

> eye; the ear of the ear,

> the mind of the mind'. In fact It is the VERY

> Subject that enables the eyes

> to see, the ear to hear etc. It is not an object of

> the senses or the Mind

> or the Intellect. Hence, to answer your question, I

> have to tell you that

> you cannot make God an object of Knowledge. An

> example will elucidate the

> idea. You are walking along a dark country road at

> night, occasionally

> illuminating *

>

> *your path with the aid of a battery torch; you want

> to know how the torch

> gives light; you unscrew the torch, you will not be

> able to see the battery

> cells, as the bulb will not emit lighty unless

> powered by the battery of

> cells. Similarly, the eyes, the ears, the mind and

> the intellect, all of

> which get *

>

> *their own power to function from the LIFE

> PRINCIPLE, cannot understand IT

> as an object. God is thus conceived of as the life

> principle, in every one. "

> *

>

> *The audience sat spell bound listening to Swamiji,

> exposition of a

> difficult vedantic truth in easy lucid style.*

>

> * " Then Swamiji, you say that God or Truth is

> something abstract, that cannot

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Go to

http://in.messenger./webmessengerpromo.php