Maya

 

In most of the Hindu philosophies like Dvaitam, Visistadvaitam, Tantric, Shaktam, the definition of Maya is very simple - it says that Bhagawan or God or Brahman has created Maya, the entire universe is Maya, everything that is created by God is Maya and has no connection with Brahman .... it is just a simple defintion..

But Advaita Vedanta has a unique and profound definition of Maya –

ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः। brahma satyam jagat mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah

Brahman alone is the reality, existence absolute, knowledge absolute, bliss absolute, the world or universe is an appearance, it is an appearance of the Brahman, the jivan - me and you - are none other than the Brahman itself.

Maya is nothing but Ignorance of our own nature for which the knowledge of Brahman is the solution. - This is the definition of the above statement by Adi Shankara.

Maya can be loosely translated in two forms

“(a) Giving the similes for the word “avarana” - 'illusion', 'concealment', 'the web of seeming', 'appearance', 'glamour', 'relativity', 'classification', 'contingency', 'objectivization', 'distinctivisation', 'exteriorisation';

 (b) Giving the similes for the word “Viksepa” - 'cosmic power', 'divine art', 'universal unfolding', 'cosmic magic', 'the power of Isvara' and 'the principle of self-expression'

Maya is neither Illusion, nor Idealism nor Realism or it is a Theory. -- It is just a statement of Fact.

"To logic maya is a puzzle. Wonder is its garment; inscrutable is its nature"

Let us look at it from purely scientific perspective.

I see objects through my eye, which is projected in to my brain and the mind "conceives" it. What it conceives is its own creation of the object based on its memories, its corelation with the other areas of the mind, the environment of the object

 

For example, in this picture of the chess board, the square B looks darker than square A due to the mind association with the chess board, while in reality the square A is darker than square B.

I my eyes see this table and conceives an image in my mind and what the conceiving of the Image is just the “projection” in my mind as a solid, dark brown table with four legs and draws. But in reality, it is nothing but a vast space 0.0000000000004% of that space occupied by electrons and neurons and positrons and other elementary particles

But the visual perception of the table is a Fact, but not reality.

So, all the objects, the whole world is a projection and the projections are facts, but it is not the reality.

So, it is not just an illusion – it is a Fact of life for us, but it is not the Reality, the Reality is empty space with very few particles in a particular structure

It is not an Idealism; it cannot be taken as an unrealistic belief – it is a Fact but not Reality

It is not just a theory, not a supposition of a bundle of ideas – it is a Fact but not Reality

It is not Reality --- Yes, it is just a Fact, but not a Reality

So should we take the world not seriously while we live in this world…. Hell no. We have to take it seriously. Here I would like to give the analogy of an Icon in a computer like Dr Donald Hoffman, the famous Cognitive Neuroscientist usually gives.

You have worked on a MS PPT presentation for a week, to be presented to the Sales Meeting next week. It is represented by the PPT Icon on your desktop. Does all the graphics, images, slides and information that you have put in the PPT is in that Icon? No, all the information that you have entered are in electrical energy in terms of the binary states of the memory in a memory chip either in your computer or in a cloud computer supported by millions of semiconductor components, power supply and they are encoded in a particular way as per the software with which it is created. That information are not in the “Icon of the PPT”

Since the Icon does not have all the “information’, can you drag the Icon and put it in the “Trash bin Icon” of the computer or click on it and do Alt+Ctrl+Del. No. You have to take the “Icon” seriously when you are working on the computer

Same way as long as you are “engaging” in the outside world, we need to take the outside world seriously and engage with it as a matter of Fact. But is the world Reality … No, it is not reality.

 "Vivekananda in fact admits that “He who knows the Real sees in Maya not illusion, but reality. He who knows not the Real sees in Maya illusion and thinks it real"

Advaita statements on Maya

  This maya cannot be expressed as it exists or cannot be expressed that it does not exist

This world is a Maya, you and me as the bodily identified personalities are Maya. This world and our bodily personalities can not be expressed as it exists from the ‘Reality’ perspective, since in Reality they are nothing but Brahman itself, as there nothing exists other than Brahman. But in ‘Factual’ perspective from the position of ‘dealing with the world’, we can not say it does not exist

 - Maya is made of three Gunas - Satva, Rajas, Tamas

There are three powers in Maya: the power of concealing the reality (avaranasakti), the power of projecting what is not real (vikshepasakti), and the power of jnana (jnanasakti). The first two are the causes of bondage; the third leads to liberation. The first is the result of the tamas part of Maya, the second is due to the rajas part and the third is due to the sattva part. Isvara’s Maya is predominantly sattvic and it is under His control. So there is no bondage for Him. The jiva’s Maya is constituted of all the three gunas in different proportions and so he suffers bondage. The rajoguna is the cause of attachment, aversion, etc., in the jiva. All qualities such as desire, doubt, fear, courage, resolve, faith, lack of faith, anger, avarice, pride, jealousy etc., (both good and bad qualities) relate only to the mind and not to the atma. They are superimposed on the atma because of lack of discrimination between the mind and the atma due to ignorance. These qualities of the mind are the cause of all the activities of the jiva. The “Power of concealing the reality” is the first to kick in, in the Jiva due to which the Real nature of Jiva, which is Brahman itself, gets concealed and the other three power takes over. Thus the veiling power of Maya is the root cause of the jiva’s bondage and transmigration. As Adi Shankara says in his Bhashya on Kathopanishad “Alas, how unfathomable, inscrutable and variegated is this power of Maya, that every human being, though in reality identical with the supreme Brahman, and is told this again and again by the upanishads, does not realize that truth, but considers himself as the body, mind and senses, even though he is not told so by any one”. 

- Maya is opposed to knowledge, that is, it is destroyed by knowledge

Brahman is the Pure Knowledge, while Atman is the same pure knowledge at the individual level, whit it is being concealed by the Maya. It is because of the ignorance of Maya, the real nature of us as Atman is hidden from us, hence it is termed to be opposed to knowledge.

Same way, it is the realisation of Atman by itself, the Self Realisation that unveils the Maya that conceals the Atman, thereby destroyed by the Atman which is Pure knowledge itself.

- Maya has a positive force giving the impression of its existence

The cause is that which, present, will produce the effect. Existence alone can be the cause of something. Anything that does not exist, can not be the cause of something that exists. Something can not come out of nothing. The whole universe, the materialistic universe, all the objects, the bodily aspects of you and me exists, for which the cause is Maya. So Maya is a positive force giving the impression of its existence through the causation of the materialistic universe through its positive power. But Maya is the illusion, that conceals Brahman which is the real source of the Maya itself, which is illusion through which this illusory materialistic world is created. Such is the power of Maya.

Maya obscures the Reality, it does not allow us to know who we are or it does not allow us to know what the universe is in reality

Maya projects the reality as it is not

Maya cannot be characterised; it cannot be identified as an entity or a phenomenon

Thus, Maya is a complex and complicated phenomena that has been dealt with by Vedanta, particularly Advaita Vedanta in a phenomenal way, as one of the Crown Jewel of the Vedanta itself. Maybe it for this reason Adi Shankara deals with it in his Viveka Chudamani – the Crown Jewel of Discrimination.

This very same crown jewel of Advaita was very scholarly and in great erudition was objected and tried to completely demolish by the great Sri Ramanucharya in his Sree Bhashyam with Seven Objections.

In the next post I will give the Seven Objections and also the replies to the Seven Objections from Advaita perspective and establish the Absolute Tenability of the Seven Untenables of Ramanuja

Who is a Hindu?

 

A lot of ink has flowed over the question how to define Hinduism.  There is no other religion for which the question of definition is so difficult. So I am giving below my own version of answer to this question, simply by collating and in concised from the seminal book by the Indic scholar of Belgium, Dr Koenraad Elst with the same title "who is a Hindu?"

There are Credal definitions, Historical definitions, Legal definition and pragmatic definition

1. Definition by Bal Gangadhara Tilak -    "who chose belief in the Vedas, variety in the means and infiniteness of the objects of worship as the criteria for being a Hindu" - The acceptance of many approaches to the ultimate truth is indeed a distinctive characteristic of Hinduism, distinguishing it from the exclusivism intrinsic to Christianity and Islam, however, : perhaps disagreement about the means’ would be a better description than ‘variety in the means’.  Thus, many of the Sants of the Bhakti movement (Kabir, Nanak, Chaitanya) extol repeating the God-name as the means to Liberation and explicitly denounce both rituals and ascetic practices as false ways. Another major problem with the definition is "belief in Vedas", which will contradict with the pluralism of spiritual paths and these will exclude Veerashivas, Brahmosamaj, Aryasamaj, Budhists, Jains, Tribals etc.

2. Credal definition of Puranic Hinduism -- "Who believe in Reincarnation, and adherents of all the Puranic and Vedic scriptures including belief in caste separation, [not Varna which is Class separation] taboo on cow slaughter - this will exclude almost most of the present day Hindus who do not practice Caste separation, Aryasamaj, Ramakrishna mission. However one of the important point of this definition is "belief in reincarnation" which is a central theme in many of the sects including Budhists, Sikhs and Jains

3. Historical definition: - The term ‘Hindu’ is the Persian equivalent of the Indo-Aryan term ‘Sindhu’, ‘river’, ‘the Indus’.  The equivalence is a simple application of the regular phonetic relation between the Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches of the Indo-European language family: initial [s] is retained in Indo-Aryan but changed into [h] in Iranian, while aspirated voiced stops like [dh] are retained in Indo-Aryan but lose their aspiration in Iranian.  The Iranians used the word Hindu to designate the river Sindhu and the countries and populations situated around and beyond the Sindhu.  From Persian, the Greeks borrowed the river name as Indos and the people’s name as Indoi, hence in English Indus, India, Indian.

The Hindus never described themselves as ‘Hindus’, until Muslim invaders came and designated them by this Persian term.5 it does not follow that those whom we would call Hindus in retrospect had no sense of pan-Hindu cultural unity, as some might hastily conclude; merely that the term Hindu was not yet in use.

All Indians who were not Parsis, Jews, Christians, or Muslims, were automatically Hindus.  So, the original definition of Hindu is: an Indian Pagan.  Since the earliest use of the term Hindu in India, a clear definition has been given with it, and of every community it can easily be decided whether it fits that definition or not.  It does not matter if you do not like the name-tag: if you fit the definition, you fall within the Hindu category.  The Hindus have not chosen to be called Hindus: others have conceived the term and its definition, and Hindus simply found themselves carrying this label and gradually accepted it.

4. Legal Definition: - India’s Constitution does not give a definition of the term Hindu, but it does define to whom the ‘Hindu Law’ applies.  It must do this because in spite of its pretence to secularism, the Indian Constitution allows Muslims, Christians and Parsis a separate Personal Law.

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 goes in greater detail to define this ‘legal Hindu’, by stipulating in Section 2 that the Act applies:

‘(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,

‘(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and

‘(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion’.

This definition of the ‘legal Hindu’, though explicitly not equating him with the ‘Hindu by religion’, is exactly coterminous with the original Islamic use of the term Hindu: all Indian Pagans are legally Hindus.  The Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are explicitly included in the ‘Hindus by law’ but separated from the ‘Hindus by religion’: at this point, the law follows the usage established by Western scholars, contrary to the original usage.

Though initially it was objected by Sikhs in the Parliament and was convinced by the then Law Minister BR Ambedkar, all Sikhs, Jains and Budhists accepted it purely from the perspective of availing the benefits of caste-based reservations which is applicable only to Legal Hindus. Ramakrishna Mission went to court claiming them to be excluded from the definition of Hindu in order to escape the legal anti-Hindu discriminations esp. in education and temples, but lost it as they were unable to differentiate themselves from the term Hindu on the aspects of the practice of the religion, which squarely fell within the ambit of all practices.

Same way, Scheduled Castes automatically fell in to the legal definition of the Hindu in order to enjoy the legal benefits which is not available for other religious minorities. However Scheduled Tribes will need to declare themselves as a Hindu in order to enjoy the benefits.

5. Savarkar's definition: - ’A Hindu means a person who regards this land of Bharatavarsha, from the Indus to the Seas, as his Fatherland as well as his Holyland, that is the cradle-land of his religion"

This means that a non-Indian cannot be a Hindu, even if he considers India as his ‘Holyland’ say like Isconites; while a born Indian cannot be a Hindu if he considers a non-Indian place (Mecca, Jerusalem, Rome) as his ‘Holyland’.  Since Jainism, Buddhism, Veerashaivism, Sikhism, and all Indian tribal cults have their historical origins and sacred sites on Indian soil, all Indian Jains, Buddhists, Veerashaivas, Sikhs and so-called ‘animists’ qualify as Hindus.

The values of Sanatana Dharma are not tied up with this piece of land, and the Vedas or the Gita, though obviously situated in India, are not bothered with notions of ‘fatherland’ and ‘holyland’.  As Dr. Pukh Raj Sharma, a teacher of Ayurveda and Bhakti-Yoga from Jodhpur once said: ‘The country India is not important.  One day, India too will go.’4 So, we may question the wisdom of defining a religious tradition by an external characteristic such as its geographical location, even if the domain of this definition admirably coincides with the actual referent of the term Hindu in its common usage.

In Conclusion:

Hence a conglomeration of the credal, legal and practical definition will aptly fit -

A Hindu is a one who believes, practices either one or many or all of the aspects below:

-  belief in the Vedas, variety in the means and infiniteness of the objects of worship

- believe in Reincarnation, and adherents of all the Puranic and Vedic scriptures including belief in caste separation, [not Varna which is Class separation] taboo on cow slaughter

- person who regards this land of Bharatavarsha, from the Indus to the Seas, as his Fatherland as well as his Holyland, that is the cradle-land of his religion

- An animists who worships all forms of lives and animals

- A Nature worshiper - worship of The Sun, the moon, the stars, the space, the water, the fire, the air, the earth and does not abuse them for his sole benefit

 

And follows any path towards Self Realisation or emancipation or Liberation as the central theme of his life.

This Sanatana Dharma has any number of branches and offshoots.  Within its fold, we have the Vaidika and the Tantrika, the Buddhist and the Jain; we have the Shaiva and the Vaishnava, the Shakta and the Sikh, the Arya Samaj and the Kabirpanth; we have in its fold the worshippers of Ayappa in Kerala, of Sarna in Chotanagpur and of Doni-pollo in Arunachal Pradesh, the tribes and adivasis.  through all these forms and variations flows an underlying current of shared spirituality which makes us all Hindus and gives us an intrinsic sense of harmony. From the Vedic days, we have had two sets of tradition - Rishi tradition and Muni tradition. The Rishi tradition lead to the Vedic, Upanishadic and Puranic and Dharmic outcomes and governed by all of these, while the Muni tradition lead to the similar teachings, its own puranas and its own Dharma or Dhamma opening up the Jain and Buddhist traditions. Since the origin being the same and end goal being the same of "Realisation or Emancipation or Liberation" through many different paths, all of them qualify as Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism, hence all practitioners of these traditions are called as Hindus, whether they belong to this land confined between Himalayas and the Sindh river and the three Seas or not or call this geography as their Fatherland or motherland or as holy land or not.

Religion and Spirituality

 

In the earlier article posted, I had clearly established that Hinduism (or Santana Dharma) is a Religion and it is "Not a way of Life" and it would be suicidal to term it as a way of life. Hinduism clearly fulfils the core foundational definition and characteristics of a Religion.

It is fashionable nowadays for many to say "I am not religious, but I am spiritual", more so when one is questioned as to wny they do not practice some of the religious rituals - such as rituals to the Pitr (forefathers), some of the festival rituals. So we need to know the difference between Religion or being religious and Spirituality.....

By Definition:

Religion -

- 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

- 2. a particular system of faith and worship.

- 3. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion, as a connection with the Divine

- 4.  the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them, or in the teachings of a spiritual leader

- 5. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Spirituality:

- the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

So unlike Religion - the definition of Spirituality does not have "Superhuman controlling power. Personal God or Gods, Faith" and hence people with the scientific background with the understanding of the "rational" thinking, get convinced that there is No Superhuman Controlling Power, or a God who "sees us from above", there are No God whom we can "see", the unscientific "faith". Such people who are so called scientifically progressive, but still have the "inclination" of existence of a "Power or Force or Energy" and who have not gone fully in to Atheistic views and become an Atheist... tend to call themselves as "Spiritual" and Not Religious. In my opinion they are one step away from becoming an Atheist or Agnostic.

In other words, Religion is more from the Societal and Institutional and "collective" practice of performing rituals and activities as prescribed by the Scriptures, while "Spirituality" is more individualistic in the "direct connect with the divine". And not following the "Religious dictates". - This is the unspoken definition given by the Spiritualists.

 

Such Spiritualists differentiate themselves from 'religionists' and give an impression as if they are more "progressive" or "advanced" with a superiority outlook and look down upon the general religionists and portray the religionists as "primitive" without actually saying so.

 

These "spiritualists" are more prevalent among Hindus and very scarcely found among Christians and never among Muslims. Why?

In the case of Christianity, the whole religion is based on the "institution - the Church" and "attaining God" can happen only through the Church. Though the concept of Spirituality is within the teachings of the Bible, that is to the "service of God, through the transformation of the world to build the kingdom of God". However the central teaching of Jesus through his life as given in the Bible is also the same, based on which the Religion - Christianity is itself formed. So there is no difference between Religion and Spirituality within Christianity, but very few want to differentiate by disassociating themselves with the Institution - The Church, but follow the principles of the teachings of Jesus, that is spreading his Word and trying to transform the Society. There is no "personal" connection with "divine", but they believe that Jesus will "favour" them if they follow his path.

In the case of Islam, no Muslim will ever say that he is a "Spiritualist and not a Religious" - simply because, in Islam, no one can have "realisation" or connection with the God, Allah. He has connection only with the Prophet and no one else. So the question of an individual Muslim to get "divine connection" through Spiritualism is forbidden and meaningless.

Only in Hinduism, the definition of Religion and Spirituality clearly merges - It is only in Hinduism that an individual can have "realisation" of the divine and can realise that he himself is Divine in its purest form.

In Hinduism, this attainment of realisation can be achieved in many ways, through Bhakti, through rituals for a Karma yogi and through self enquiry through Gnana of Self knowledge through meditation - so there can not be a differentiation between "religious practice" and "Spiritual practice"....

Any Hindu who says that "I am not a religious person, but a spiritual person" does now Hinduism and neither understands what is religion and spirituality from Sanatna Dharma perspective

Hinduism is a Religion or a way of life?

 

First let us look at the definition of Religion...

- 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

- 2. a particular system of faith and worship.

- 3. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion

- 4.  the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them, or in the teachings of a spiritual leader

- 5. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

If we analyse the different interpretations of the definitions

1. In Hinduism there is NO Superhuman Controlling Poer and there is no Personal God or Gods - this is a very clearly the concept of Abrahamic religions, where they have come up with a "Superhuman Controlling power and a personal God". For example in Judaism (jewish religion)- YHWH pronounced as Yahveh is the Only God of Israel and the people of Israel are the chosen people by God himself to rule the world. He is considered as a superhuman controlling power and is a personal God, where Moses and Abraham are messengers of God, through whom Yahveh has spoken to the people.... Similarly in Christianity the same name of Yahovah is given to God, as it is a repackaged Judaism, with Jesus as the Messenger and also as the Son of God, here again Yahovah is the Superhuman controlling power and a personal God..... Again in Islam, the God is Allah, who reveals the secrets only to his messenger Mohammad, the prophet. Here again Allah is the superhuman controlling power and a personal God....

This definition was the original "idea" of Religion from the western perspective.

Now, do we have such a concept - the Original concept of Brahman as explained in the Vedas ---  A very simple and powerful NO - Brahman is NOT a "Superhuman controlling power and a NOT a personal God"

So when the early German and British Indologists such as - Max Mueller, William jones, Colebrook, August Wilhelm Schlegel and others studied Vedas and Scriptures and the religious practices and philosophy, they were unable to fathom that Hinduism is not like the Abrahamic religions and hence termed that Hinduism is not a religion as it did not fit into their definition and called it "A way of life"... (we will see if it is a way of life as they put it - slightly later)

2. Second definition - A particular System of Faith and worship -- Here again there is no particular "Faith System" and no Particular Worship system. As a matter of fact - the core of the Vedas, the philosophical aspect of Vedas, the Upanishidas clearly states that, "do not believe", "Question everything" and you yourself "experience" and come to your own conclusion. Again from the perspective of "Worship System" - Hinduism has so many ways of worship depending on the Sampradaya (different paths) and there is No One particular way of worship. As a matter of fact, worship is more for the Householder than  - Brahmacharyas or Vanaprasthas or Sanyasis - So it is NOT  a Particular faith or worship

3. Third definition - Pursuit or interest followed with great devotion ---  Hinduism is singularly applicable to this - it is the pursuit or interest followed with single minded focus of attaining a Goal with great devotion.... This definition of Religion clearly applies to Hinduism

4. Fourth definition - the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that relate to the worship of them, or in the teachings of a spiritual leader --- Though Hinduism is NOT a belief system, but accepts the existence of Gods and it is associated with the activities connected to worship, teachings of spiritual leaders not one leader --- So Hinduism more or less may come under this definition also

5. Fifth definition - a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices - Here Hinduism is Not "A" personal set or Institutionalised system like Christianity that is completely defined system by the Church as the institution, but we have many "institutionalised systems" and again when there are no "belief system' at the core level, but when it comes to the different Institutionalised systems, the belief and practices of those institutions gets practiced by the followers of those institutions. Hence this definition will not apply to Hinduism

So -- Hinduism does not fall under the Main definition of Hinduism but it does fall under other definitions in a selective manner -- So WE cannot call Hinduism in the strictest sense of Western Definitions of Religion

Now Coming to "Way of Life" --- which is being used by "many proud Hindus" as if something "Superior" to it... let us examine....

What is way of Life?

1. A typical pattern of behaviour of a person or a group

2. the habits, customs, and beliefs of a particular person or group of people

If we go by these definitions then

- a Beggar has a way of life

- A thief has a way of life

- A businessman has a way of life

- A Politician has a way of life

- A Cricketer has a way of life

- A prostitute has a way of life

All of these people have a typical pattern of behaviours, habits, customs and beliefs... So every "group" of people have a "set of pattern of behaviour, habits, customs and beliefs" - so is Hinduism and All Hindus are like that?

Absolutely No - The pattern of behaviour of a Shivite from South is different from the pattern of behaviour of a Shivite from Kashmir, each and every sampradaya that is within Hinduism are very different from each other - but all of us are "Recognised" as Hindus...

Even more important, a “way of life” does not make any reference to any authoritative scripture or teaching, creating a very loose statement, devoid of the great meaning and import the Hinduism signifies.

So, calling Hinduism as a way of life is a stupidest of all description and it is fraught with terrible consequences

- If Hinduism is defined as Not a religion but a way of Life - From legal perspective, all the constitutional provisions for a religion will be lost to Hinduism

- Government can completely control "the way of life", they can control your practices, prayers, worships, meditations, temples, festivals etc..... because it is "Not a Religious practice" - even without that Govt and Courts are controlling the Hindu religious activities and festivals,

- Other religions can easily and legally convert Hindus into theirs, like Christianity and Islam- they can claim that in any way you do not belong to any "Religion" so I am not "Converting" you, I am only asking a person who is devoid of a religion to adopt my religion

- According to the “way of life” perspective, Hinduism must also legitimately include atheists, agnostics and people who do not have any interest, knowledge or faith in the teachings of the Vedic and Tantric scriptures, and even groups that do not like to be called Hindus – such as Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs.

Thus, the confusion over the meaning of “Hinduism” and “Hindu” will increase, causing further disenchantment and loss of commitment towards support/participation to Hinduism and the Hindu cause among many groups, both in India and a global level.

Nobody likes to identify with something that is not clear – and expecting any level of commitment from non-identified people is illusory.

Hinduism will increasingly lose credibility and respectability at national and global level in academia and media and in the general public opinion....

The word “religion” is universally recognized as a connection with the Divine - and Hinduism is clearly connected with the Divine and the Divine principles.

*So Hinduism should never be equated or quoted as "Way of Life" - Absolutely No - It is a Religion, derived from the Vedas*

What is God

 

While theocratic religions of the world may tell you that God created I man in his image, I personally think man created God in his image. God was objectified onto familiar forms, so that man could interact with the divine in ways that he interacts with people around him. Democratic Hinduism, consequently, is willing to accept any form as God into its pantheon, including the formless version. Interestingly, the Vedas and Upanishads are not focussed upon Who is God?' They are rather absorbed in understanding 'What is God?'

 What is God?

 Let us first see what the Vedas have to say about God. Here are a few sample statements. God is

 • a singular being who is diversely spoken of (Ekam Sat-Viprah Bahudha Vadanti; Rig Veda, Book 1).

 • a personal and impersonal being who can be manifest and unmanifest; who exists or can be non-existent and who is interminable. (Rig Veda, Book 10).

 • a being who manifests as the universe and all the eyes and ears of all beings and whose cosmic body transcends into infinity (Purusha Sukta).

 • all visible and invisible matter (Narayana Sukta).

 • the Creator, the created, and the collective totality (Hiranyagarbha Sukta).

 • all that is animate or inanimate (Satarudriya or Rudra Adhyaya of the Yajur Veda).

 Note that none of these statements say anything about 'who' God is! They are intent on telling you 'what God is and is not. The Upanishads elaborate upon this concept of God and declare that all that is, is nothing but a manifestation of God-Brahman. Since Brahman manifests as everything and is the underlying principle of everything, it is impossible to objectify Brahman for worship. So, Brahman is not the God that is worshipped. The different facets of this Brahman or his characteristics may be objectified for worship, maybe, as Indra, Rudra, Aditya, Agni, Shiva, Vishnu, and so on. But Brahman, as a whole, cannot be objectified and encapsulated into a form that can be worshipped.

 The Kena Upanishad elaborates on this argument about Brahman. Brahman cannot be described in words because it is the energy that creates the words. Brahman cannot be imagined or thought of because it is the energy that makes you imagine or think. Brahman cannot be seen with the eyes because it is the energy that makes the eyes see. Brahman cannot be heard because it is the energy that makes you hear. Brahman is not breath because it is the energy that makes you breathe. Therefore, that which cannot be described by the tongue, thought of by the mind, seen with the eye, or heard with the ear cannot be worshipped. In other words, you cannot make Brahman an object of worship. So how does one experience Brahman? Brahman is a subjective experience.

 The Origin or Primary source of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma is Vedas - Strutis - What is "heard" - what is "revealed" to the Rishis, so Vedas are "apurusheya" - not from men.

 The Vedas have mainly Four portions

- Samhitas - They are Hymns or Mantras in praise of Gods towards getting material properties and happiness. These are metrical poems comprising prayers, incantations addressed to various Vedic Dieties - These are aimed at the "begginers - Brahmacharis" - the Samhitas are also called as Upansana Kandas

 - Brahmana - The main prose composition guides people to perform rituals, sacrificial rites - yagnyas. These explains the method of using the Samhitas-Hymns-Mantras to perform rituals - Brahmana - is for the Householders to perform rituals - This is also called as Karma Kanda

 - Aranyakas - Forest books - this gives the philosophical interretations of the rituals - This is meant for Vanaprasthas or Sanyasis - This also belongs to Karma Kanda but with a tilt towards the Gnana Kanda

 - Upanishads - The essence and knowledge portion of the Vedas - Where thare are no Prayers or Worship of any Vedic Gods are given - this is meant for Advanced stages of Sanyasins to attain Realisation. - This is also called Gnana Kanda

 Anukarmaani of Vedas give the historical and geographical context of the Slokas, lineage of the composer, the period of composition giving reference to the Kings of the time and the geographical location with reference to rivers, flora and fauna and astronomical reference of the event -- This is the main source within Vedas to determine the timeline and lineage of the particular slokas of the Vedas

 The Inner Science dealt with so far is from the Upanishads, the Gnana Kanda portion of the Vedas which is purely philosophical in nature giving the step by step philosophical journey towards the Ultimate Reality - The Brahman.

 - Is the underlying substratum or underlying principle of everything

 - At the individual level named as Atman and at the universal level is named as Brahman

- As per the Vedic – Upanishidic declaration following the Neti – Neti principle, which negates any attribute

- That Attribute-less or Undefinable principle is called as Nirguna Brahman – Brahman without any quality or attribute

- Rishis DID NOT call this underlying principle Nirguna Brahman as “God”

- Since it can not be “Conceptualised” because of no attributes

- Brahman is the Reality. He is the Absolute Truth. All else is unreal and mere illusion, like a mere shadow that disappears when the Sun shines.

 So Rishis have not called the Absolute Reality - the Foundational Aspect of Sanatana Dharma - Brahman, as God

 Nasadiya sukta, of Rig Veda (10th mandala)states that Brahman is both the Unmanifest and the Manifest, Existence as well as Non-existence, the Supreme Indeterminable.

 So the "unmanifest" Brahman manifests as everything else, The Supreme Indeterminable, enables itself to be determinable....

 Thus all the "Manifested" aspects of Brahman is termed as God, in the Samhitas and Brahmanas of the Vedas

 The underlying principle manifests into different forms, like a human being, all animals, all matter and all natural forces or phenomena

Rishis called this manifestation of Nirguna Brahman into Form as Saguna Brahaman – Brahman with quality or attribute

And they gave a figurative human form to the manifestation of Brahman – that is Rishis “personified” the manifestations of Saguna Brahman

The Saguna Brahmans are called Gods (Devah)

 Vedic Gods are all personification of “natural phenomena”

- Agni – The natural phenomena or force of Fire – given an imaginary human form

- Indra – The natural phenomena of thunder and lightning

- Rudra – The natural phenomena of heavy Storm and lightning

- Varuna – The upholder of all natural laws and also nourisher of earth through rain

- Mitra – The guardian of the world along with Varuna. Mitra and Varuna are together as great friends

- Vayu – The provider of beauty and intelligence and represents the wind

 - Surya – Represents Light and Power representing Sun

 - Vishnu – The protector of people in their life

- Rudra-Siva – Represents the primordial Man, a true representation of all the characters of Brahman itself, and represents Creation and Destruction of matter

 Apart from the above prominent Gods – the personification of Saguna Brahman, there are few other Gods – Brhihaspati, Rta, 12 Adityas, Savitr, Soma, Ashwins each representing natural phenomena

 Worshipping Gods in Temples were never a practice during the Vedic times

Propitiating the Gods was only through offerings through Agni, Agni being the carrier of the offerings

Propitiating the Gods were recommended only for the ordinary people - the Brhamacharis and Householder and it was not a necessary conditions for the Rishis

People who aspire to have the “experience” like Rishis – Self Realisation – the only method was through Self Enquiry, as discussed in Inner Sciences, and not through the Rituals and propiating the "Gods"

 So, During the Vedic period, the Natural Phenomena were considered to be Gods

 No Temple Structure ever found in the Indus /Saraswati civilisation and there were no Pujas as Bhakti movement had not started

Vedic Period coincided with the Indus/Saraswati civilisation or overlapped

 Vedic Period was From or Pre 6500 BCE till 2500 BCE, while IVC/SVC was from 5000 BCE to 2000 BCE (I will give proofs later when Aryan Invasion Theory is taken up)

Vedic worshipping was only through Agni Sacrifices (or) Offerings through Agni

There are clear archaeological evidence for the Fire Altars in the IVC/SVC sites

 Puranas were the main source of “Stories” where the “Gods” were eulogised and worshipped.

Puranas are just stories of "old times" and they are not to be taken literally as "history or facts"

Puranic period extended from Vedic Period and beyond the Vedic period

The propitiation of Gods in Vedas were derived from the Puranas, while Vedas were primarily was focused on the search of Truth and ultimate finding of the  Absolute Truth – Brahman

Puranas got intertwined in the Vedas including the Upanishads with the culmination of the Realisation of Brahman

Though the Vedic period ended by or before 2000 BCE, the Puranic period extended, with which the Bhakti movement started.

With the Bhakti movement, the Murti (idol) worshipping started as a means to associate the Saguna Brahman with an image.

 Puranas are the sources of God and God worshipping, not the Vedas, both are distinctly different

The Puranas developed in to full-fledged Bhakti movement particularly in the South

The Temple and Murti worship emanated in the south and spread throughout Bharat, while Vedas along with the Agni sacrifice started from the homeland of Vedas which is North and spread throughout Bharat

Even the word Pooja in Sanskrit is a ‘borrowed’ word from Tamil - பூ+செய் = பூசை

Both intermingled - Vedic Philosophy and Puranic Bhakti evolved in to a veritable corpus of religio-spiritual culture, now known as Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma

As part of Sama Veda – in Talavakra Bhramana, the Kenopanishad starts with the first part clearly saying about the nature of Bhraman-Atman “That, which speech can not reveal, but what reveals speech, know that alone as Brahman –AND NOT THIS THAT PEOPLE HERE WORSHIP” – Clearly distinguishing the “murti worship” is not Brahman, which can not be worshipped, only to be “realised”

 So God worship – in the form of Murti worship in a temple or at home, were prevalent during the later vedic period

Clear understanding was there that God worship does not lead to “Realisation of Brahman” but it only aids in personal and societal upliftment of individual and the society in order to prepare for the process of Realisation of Brahman

Puranas were the tool to bring in a sense of admiration, affection and woshipfulness of the “Gods” along with all other aspects of Dharma

Over a period of time – the God worship evolved in to various forms and in to various methods and thus emerged the present day Gods

Concept of Karma comes in to conflict with Worship of Gods for personal favours and the Great Rishis have pointed that Karma will take its course

Worship of Gods is essential to an aspirant to qualify himself for Realisation