Vegetarian?

Should I Become a Vegetarian?
Recently two questions were asked – Does Hinduism require one to believe in God? Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian?
In a recent article, I have addressed the first question. Here I will provide some thoughts for the second question. In relation to the first question, I have discussed what Hinduism stands for and who is truly a Hindu. In essence, Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, and that Dharma is from time immemorial; it involves pursuit of Moksha through self-reflection, inquiry, and Self-Knowledge. Self-Knowledge in Hinduism is synonymous with Moksha (Liberation from the cycle of birth and death).
Therefore, the one who is seeking to understand the ultimate mystery of existence and thereby gaining salvation or release is a true Hindu, irrespective of the nationality, caste, creed or gender. With that catholic understanding, one can see that Hinduism becomes a way of life because the pursuit of the essential purpose of life is the goal of the ideal Hindu life. If you ask most Hindus whether they believe in God, you will get a firm “Yes”, in response.
With this perspective, it is easier to analyze all other questions including whether Hinduism requires one to be a vegetarian. Since the purpose of life is securing liberation or Moksha, until we reach that we need to maintain our body. Keeping the body healthy through proper nourishment is the Hindu Dharma. The human body is considered a temple of God. Therefore, it is sacred and should be treated with respect.
You asked whether a Hindu has to be a vegetarian. Well, it is a fact that not all Hindus are vegetarians. Hindu kings and princes and the warriors have eaten meat for thousands of years. So your question is not whether a Hindu should eat but whether you should eat meat. Since such a question has already arisen in your mind, perhaps you have developed a degree of sensitivity about harming other living forms to satisfy your physical hunger. If that is true, you may be better off not eating meat. That way you will be at peace with yourself. Since you are sensitive to this issue, your intellect may be directing you towards being a vegetarian. It is a possibility. However, your mind wants the pleasure of eating meat and your body may crave it due to past habits. So you have to reflect on this. Why has this question come up for you? What is the right thing for you to do?
Follow Your Self-Nature
When you go against your own intellect and good understanding of life you commit a sin. An act that is contrary to your SWADHARMA (your own nature) creates a conflict within you. So you have to reflect on whether being a vegetarian is natural to you or not. Now, of course, even the traditional non-vegetarians are choosing vegetarianism not because of any compassion to other animals but they are recognizing that meat is not good for their health.
I have already mentioned that Hinduism does not say to you “don’t do this and don’t do that”. You must determine your own actions based on your intellectual values, culture, education and primary goal in life. You will find that following your Swadharma (your own nature) will make you comfortable with yourself. It is not for others to judge what food is right for you! It is for you to decide.
While you are trying to decide whether to be a vegetarian do this experiment. Imagine your self to be a chicken or cow who is about to be slaughtered for food. Would you not advise the guy who wants to make a dinner out of you to be a vegetarian instead? The golden rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” can sometimes help shape our analysis.
Life Lives on Life
Life lives on life. That is the law of nature. Whether I eat an animal or plant, I am destroying a life in some form. Among all life forms, Man is different from the rest. He has the capability to discriminate right from wrong. That gives him the freedom of choice which animals and plants lack.
According to ancient teachings and our observations, plants have just a body and perhaps a rudimentary mind. Animals have both body and mind to express their feelings and suffering, but rudimentary intellect. Man has not only body and mind but also a well developed intellect to discriminate between good and bad, and to choose.
Man always has three choices: He can choose to do something, not to do it, or find another alternative way to do it that is more satisfactory. For animals and plants there is no freedom of choice. They are instinctively driven. The cow does not sit down before meals and inquires whether it should be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian. Same with the tiger or the eagle. They don’t say prayers before eating like we do. They just act according to their nature. No one can hold that against them.
Man and Sin
For a Man the discriminative intellect is much evolved. Plants and animals do not commit sin in their actions because there is no will involved in their actions. For a human, the story is different.
You may wonder why I brought sin in the argument. Let me explain. Sin is nothing but agitations in the mind. It is these agitations that prevent me in my journey to Moksha. Mind has to be pure (meaning un-agitated) for me to see the truth as the truth. (Bible also says blessed are those whose minds are pure).
To define sin more scientifically: It is the divergence between the mind and intellect. Intellect knows right from wrong. But we feel like doing things even though we know they are wrong . That is, the intellect says something but mind which should be subservient to the intellect rebels and does whatever it feels like. This divergence is sin.
After a wrong action is performed there is a guilt feeling. Intellect, although it was overruled, does not keep quiet. It keeps prodding “I told you it is wrong. Why did you do it?” With peace of mind gone, Man goes through a “Hell”. Man is not punished for the sin; he is punished by the sin! Think about it. All the Yoga schools, if you analyze clearly, are bringing this integration between the body, mind, and intellect so that there can be harmony. With harmony, there is peace.
For a true Yogi, what he thinks, what he speaks, and what he does are in perfect alignment. In our case, we think something but have no guts to say what we think. Our lips say something different from what we are thinking. Sometimes people say, “Watch My Lips or Read My Lips “. They mean to emphasize that what they say can be counted on. However, if you watch their lips as requested and follow their actions these are again different! There is no integration anywhere. Our lips and our hips have divergent paths. We live a chaotic life of freestyle dancing! Besides deceiving others, we deceive ourselves, and the worst thing is sometimes we don’t even realize that.
Animals and Sin
Now, when a tiger kills and eats, it does not commit a sin. Because its intellect is rudimentary, it does not go through any analysis before it kills and asks “should I kill or not kill this cute deer”? A tiger does not ask itself, “Should I be a non-vegetarian or a vegetarian?”. When it is hungry, to fill the natures demand, it kills its prey and eats what it needs and leaves the rest when it is full. A tiger does not overeat. There are no fat tigers in nature.
A tiger is not greedy either. It does not seek luxury beyond satisfying its needs. Animals and plants and birds and bees and insects and all living things follow a beautiful ecological system. It is only man who destroys the ecology by being greedy. But Man also has the beautiful instrument of the intellect and the ability to develop it and to meditate on the reality of the universe.
Should I be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?
So yes, “Should I be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?” is asked only by a man. Why does that question come? It comes due to reflection. Because man has a discriminative intellect, he can reflect on the nature of pain and suffering. Perhaps a man may think at some point in his life whether it is justifiable to harm and kill an animal to fill his belly. A person may reflect whether eating animals is consistent with the golden rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. A man may consider whether this maxim applies to all forms of life or just other human beings.
Plants are life forms too. “Should one hurt them?” you may ask. If one can live without hurting any life forms that is the best, but that is not possible. Life lives on life – that is the law of nature. My role as a human being with discriminative intellect is to do the least damage to the nature for keeping myself alive and well.
At least, I am not consciously aware of suffering of the plants. That is why eating to live and not living to eat is the determining factor. In Bhagawad Geeta, Sri Krishna emphatically says that a Sadhaka (one who is in pursuit of Moksha) should have a compassion for all forms of life. There may come a point when it is advisable to be a vegetarian – only taking from nature what you need to keep the body in optimal health.
In one’s spiritual growth, one develops subtler and subtler intellect. That is, the mind becomes more sensitive, calmer, and self-contented. Your sensitivity to suffering of others also grows. Hence, the thought about becoming a vegetarian may come. Only you can decide what is right for you and not someone else. Any decision that is imposed on you from the outside does violence to your nature.
Many young people are now becoming vegetarians. They all have their own reasons. Fortunately vegetarianism is mainstream now and accepted. Most schools and universities offer vegetarian and even vegan meals and so the option to become a vegetarian is easier today than ever before.
Flowers grow in their own time. Whether you are vegetarian or not does not matter ultimately.
You are all flowers blooming in the light of the divine.
Hari Om and Tat Sat. – Sadananda

Three Types of Teachers

There are three types of teachers:
1. One who knows the shAstra-s and is also firmly established in that knowledge, i.e. a shrotriya and a brahma niShThA.
2. One who does not know the shAstra-s but is firmly established in the knowledge, i.e. only a brahma niShThA.
3. One who knows the shAstra-s but is not firmly established in the knowledge, i.e. only a shrotriya.
Of these, the first one is the best and the scriptures advise one to approach such a teacher.
The second is a problem since, although he may be a brahma niShThA, he is not a teacher. Shankara says that one should avoid such a teacher. He may inspire one to inquire but he cannot guide others.
The third one is the second best, since at least one can learn from that teacher.
Now the problem is that a brahma niShThA alone will know that he is a brahma niShThA - no one else can know. One can only guess by studying the person’s behavior for a prolonged length of time; observing that he does not get excited, for example, as Krishna describes.
This means that the student can never know if his teacher is a brahma niShThA or not but he can find out if his teacher has studied the scriptures or not.
Since one needs shraddhA or faith in the words of the teacher, it is imperative for the student to assume that his teacher is realized (irrespective of whether the teacher is realized or not). Then, if he learns, the student can realize since he has faith in the teaching.
Ultimately, a teacher is one who directs the disciple to the scriptures and not to himself as the authority, since the scriptures ultimately form the means of knowledge.
Now the question is: why do we need a teacher or guide? Why cannot just a book or tape recorder or CD player be a teacher?
Firstly, this is a subjective science involving non-objectifiable truths. The preconceived notions of the seeker form impediments to knowledge. If we cannot do a PhD without a guide, as stipulated by any university rules, it is even more imperative to have a guide for this more subtle inquiry. Furthermore, simply having a PhD does not mean that one can guide another student. Either one has to have both a PhD and be involved in continuing inquiry or research or one may be well established in research but not actually have a PhD. The same thing applies to this more subtle inquiry.
Hence the Vedic instruction is that we should always approach a teacher for the knowledge.
Ultimately, it is due to the merits of many lives that one can find a proper teacher who can guide us to salvation.
Hence, the vivekachUDAmaNi says:
manushyatvam mumukShutvam mahApurushasamsrayam - dulabham - daiva anugraham
Being born as human being with discriminative faculty,
having a desire to become free from bondage and
having the acquaintance of a great soul.
All these three are rare indeed – and it is only due to the grace of God that it can happen.
A student has to discover his teacher for himself; no teacher will come and say ‘I am your teacher’. A student will discover his teacher when he has full faith in the teaching. Without that full faith, no teaching can takes place. ShraddhAvan labhate j~nAnam says Krishna

What is success?

By Acharya Sadanandaji
What is success?Normally success is measured in terms of one’s achievement. It is said that success comes before work only in the dictionary.  Hence every success involves hard work. One wants to acquire good education that secures good job and that gives more opportunities to become more successful in future. The one who is most successful is the one who has the most of everything that all others desire – a good education, a secure high paying job, with all the personal relations with all other beings, exactly the way one wants. Like in fairy tales, he lives happily ever after. Unfortunately, every set-up changes continuously and that is the law of nature. All set-ups are not necessarily conducive for ones likes and dislikes. The changing set-up can always up-set the metal frame of a person, even though he is successful in terms of his accomplishments.Listen to any parent – the success of his child is seen in every accomplishment, in gaining that is worthy to gain. His success is connected to the success of his child. He first feels that the child is successful if he gets first rank. Then the next success depends on his securing an admission in very good university, then his completion of his studies with high rank, then getting a job in prestigious company. That is not settling yet. Then, he feels his son is completely settled once he is married. Indian parents proudly declare that all their children are ‘settled now’. What it means, as any parent can explain, is all the daughters are married and now ‘settled’, - and all the boys are ‘settled’ with secure jobs and married, etc. All his children are settled but he is not settled yet. Now all he wants is to have grand children; with the cycle that starts again; their school admission, their education, their marriages, etc. Hence, none
 feels at any time, he is completely settled with what he has. None is happy with what he has; but always wants something more to settle – complete settlement is where there is no more longing for the mind to have anything else in order to settle. Wanting mind will never settles down with having what it wanted, since the wanting mind keeps moving forward at a faster pace with some more wanting than settling down with having fulfilled what it wanted before.‘Having’ is living in the present, while ‘wanting’ is to achieve something in future. ‘Owning’ is identifying with what one is having as one’s own.  In the same way, renouncing is also some kind of notion of owning, since one has to own in order to renounce. Thus it involves renouncing the ownership of things, which one never really owns, to begin with. The true renunciation is not renunciation of things, but renunciation of the notion of ownership. The wanting keeps shifting to the future all the time without settling down with the present. One wants to want, than just settled with what one has. Thus wanting mind never settles with just having. On the same token any statement that renunciation of external things is needed for one to realize one own self implies inherently ownership of things that one never owns.Nobody is happy with what he has or what he has achieved. He is happy, of course, when others envy what he has or others long for what he has. He can measure his success in counting what he has in relation to others who do not have and would want to have what he has. Yet, that is not where the mind can settle down and say I have no more wants since I am happy with what I have.  I am happy with what I have, but I will be happier if I have this, this, and this, which I do not have. Wanting mind is the desiring mind and scripture says feeding the mind by what it wants is like pouring ghee to put out the fire. The wanting mind includes those that one wants to have and also those that one wants to get rid off. These in the language of Vedanta are called as Vaasanas or likes and dislikes.
The wanting mind can never settled down with what it has, unless it has, of course, everything in the universe and there is nothing left to want. That means having infinite that is Brahman, the limitless. However, finite being can never achieve or acquire infinite by adding finite things. That is mathematically illogical.  Thus the problem can never be solved since wanting mind remains all the time wanting. It is a useless advice to ask the mind not to want more, since that feeling of inadequacy and wanting to be adequate is natural and instinctive too.
The reason is simple. The wanting is the very nature of the ego. Ego arises by identification with what I have, with automatic exclusion of what I do not have that I want to have, to feel that I am an adequate being.  This forms the fundamental human struggle; nay the struggle of every being in the universe; from the first born (hiranya garbha) to the blade of grass, says Shree Sureswara in his introduction to Naiskarmya siddhi.
Hence, what one has represents the present state. Future is where one is heading with his - wants to have this and that. Wanting mind is the one which longs to have this and that in the future, and gains a measure of success in achieving what it wants. Achieving puts the man with the present as having what one wanted. However, the mind never settles down in the present with what one has; hence it wants all that it still does not have; the struggle continues till death. Nay, it continues ever after death. Even if one goes to heaven the problem continues. In Tai. Up., it says, in its amicable style, that there are three different colonies even in heaven, just like here, the slums, the middle class and the hierarchically elate class. Shankara says, the slum class residents are those who reached there by noble deeds prescribed by smRiti texts, the next higher class is those who reached there by following the righteous actions prescribed by Shrutis, and of
 course the elate class are the natives who hold very important positions like MP and ministers etc – they are supposed to be 33 of them. They do not have any ministers without portfolio. They deal with the God on the first name basis. Each one is 100 times happier than the fellow down the next level. Happiest person is, of course, the first born, hiranya garbha, whose happy scale is 10 to the power of 23 times that of ideal happy human youth who is owner of entire earth with all the yellow and black gold resources at his disposal. But no one is happy, they are happier than the fellow who is below their rank or below what they have achieved. Every one falling in this happy scale has egotistical happiness, since happiness depends on what one has in relation to what others do not have and like to have. Actually everyone is only happier but no one is happy, since everyone is still left with a wanting mind that wants to want.
It is interesting to note that those who do not have and those who have, both are not happy.  Some people do not have anything not by choice, while some do not have by choice – shotriyasya akaamaya tasya. Some want to gain happiness by acquiring what they do not have. Others want to gain the happiness by renouncing what they have.  They quote scriptures that say that one has to renounce every thing to realize one is infinite or the interpretations of the scriptures that says so – tyagenaike amRitatvamaanasuH.  The fundamental problem remains. Happy state is state of limitlessness where there is no more wanting mind. A finite mind cannot but WANT in order to be happy or to reach that infiniteness or limitlessness. Finite can never reach infinite either by adding or subtracting finite things.  On the other hand, the pursuit to reach the infinite does not stop and cannot stop until the wanting mind ceases to want.
Thus there is a fundamental problem in all these – not happy with what it is – and having wanting mind that wants to want – be it absolute happy state by renunciation or wanting to reach that absolute happiness by trying to acquire everything in the universe. These are two sides of the same coin. The longing mind remains in both. Both are not happy with what it is. Present is always perceived as the stepping stone for the coming future. It is a transitory state or a passage for the future happy and absolute state. Unfortunately future never comes. There is no bridge from the present to the future, since future is just a segment of mental projection.
Thus, we have fundamentally two overriding factors: longing to achieve absolute happiness and not relative happiness, or being fully adequate all the time, which is very intrinsic nature of all beings. Not to have that wanting mind is not the solution since it is the intrinsic nature of the limited mind. Hence neither renunciation of what it is (the present state), or what one has, is the solution to the problem.  In either case, the wanting mind remains wanting and not happy with what it is, since there is a desire to become something other than what it is. This is also what JK calls it as conditioned mind. A mind conditioned to look for or to want for things that make one to be absolutely happy. Unconditioning is not a process since any process reconditions in some form. Solution to this desperate problem is to recognize the problem correctly. This is what Krishna calls the solution as sanyaasa yoga – what Gurudev Swami Chinmayanandaji translates it
 as detachment-attachment technique. It is an oxymoron to solve a problem, which cannot be solved by any process.  This does not include either sanyaasa or yoga, but sanyaasa-yoga that involves seeing what it is. What it is – is present and not what one wants it to be. It is neither by not wanting what it is, since both are wants to want something other than what it is. True sanyaasa is not renunciation of things that one owns, but it is the renunciation of the very notion of ownership. It involves the recognition that I never own anything.  This is true sharaNaagati or a complete surrendering of the wanting mind to the infinite wisdom. In the process, the wanting mind ceases to be wanting, since it rests with that infinite mind that pervades everything as His vibhuuti. In the sanyaasa of giving up the wanting mind to the infinite, one gains the yoga (of or with) the infinite - the essence of sanyaasa-yoga. The complete surrender involves
 identification with the totality where the individuality ceases to be separate for it to want any thing separate from the infinite. It is the same as knowing that I own everything or the whole universe of things and beings, and therefore wanting mind that wants is no more wanting, since there is nothing more to want.  The notional wanting mind ceases to be in the unity of the totality that underlies the plurality.
I am - is the present, not an entity in the future, with something that I want my self to be, either by gaining or by achieving or by getting rid of or sanyaasa of what I have. Sanyaasa in the sanyaasa-yoga involves renunciation of not what I have but renunciation of the very notion of separate ownership and the associated renunciation of the wanting mind which always wants to want, through yoga or by shifting my attention to that the enlivening presence because of which the inert mind dances to its wants.  It is ‘as though’ yoking the mind to the very existence-consciousness because of which I am conscious of the wanting mind that wants to want things that I do not possess, or that wants to renounce things that I possess. By being conscious of the very wanting mind that wants to want or wants to renounce what one has, one is beyond the wanting mind or beyond the longing for something in the future that never comes. That is the same as being the
 witnessing consciousness or saakshii by renouncing all mental misconceptions of ownerships those results, in both wanting things and in renouncing things. Here sanyaasa is not renunciation of things but renunciation of notional ownership to the things that one never owned.  It is true, that external renunciation can help in this internal renunciation of the notional ownership. However, to say that it is essential, I am giving notional ownership more reality that what it is. The true sanyaasa is mental detachment to the notion of ownerships, and attaching or abiding oneself as the very existence-conscious entity that I am. That is the essence of SharaNaagati. In that very understanding, the wanting mind itself gets resolved, since it can exists only as long as the conscious entity which enlivens it by identifying with it and with its limitations. It survives as long as there is an identification with the wanting mind as - I am the mind - continues
 irrespective of whether external changes I do at the physical level. One cannot renounce notional ownership by a process. It can be done only by clear understanding that there is no reality for notional ownership of things and beings.
It can be only achieved by recognition that I am – is complete by itself – without any need of the wanting mind that wants things that one does not have, or renouncing things that one has. It is recognition that I am full and complete by myself with recognition that I do not own anything even to renounce or I own everything since I am that everything. ‘aham annam, aham annam, aham annam - aham annado aham annado aham annado is the screaming song of a realized master – I am all that which is consumed or desired and I all that who is consuming or desiring – I am that which is supported, and I am all that which supports everything – in essence there is nothing that is separate from me – I am the desirer and the desired– I am all that, yet beyond all that –I am immaculately pure with neither desire nor desired – I am that I am without a second - the very living present which transcends time, since there is no time in the present, as it is
 the meeting ground where past meets the future. What is there in the present is not the time-gap but that which transcends the time itself – where there is only the very presence of the existence-consciousness that I am. Now - alone is that which counts, and is that where one truly lives, or in that only all experiences takes place, but that which is beyond any experience itself – that beyond any sanyaasa or yoga.  Wanting mind dissolves into the very presence in that present, since there is no more wanting in it which relates to future. What is there is only MY PRSENCE – AS I AM with simultaneous recognition that I AM is the essence of the world too, the things and beings that I wanted, since I AM is the infinite presence that pervades both the mind that wants and the wants that mind wants.
Hari Om!
Sadananda

Why believe scriptures?

Why should we believe in scriptures? - Dr. Kuntimaddi Sadananda
To appreciate the role of scriptures, one needs to have a clear understanding of pramANa, or means of knowledge.
pramA means ‘true knowledge’ and pramANa is the means of acquiring this knowledge. Once we establish that ignorance is the root cause of human problems, then it follows that ignorance can only be removed by knowledge. Questions that immediately follow are: ‘what is knowledge?’ and ‘how do we gain that knowledge?’.
Knowledge is defined as ‘yathArtham pramANam’ – that means of knowledge which conforms to the truth. Here, the word pramANam is used not only for the means but also for the goal. As corollary to this definition, knowledge is qualified as that which is abAdhitam - that which is not negated or contradicted. If I know an object as something and then that knowledge is contradicted later, this implies that what I knew before is not the truth about that object.
Now we bring in another word - bhrama (not to be confused with brahma!), meaning that which appears to be true but which, upon further inquiry, is contradicted – as with knowing first that an object is a snake but later coming to know that it is only a rope. Here, the snake knowledge is bhrama and the rope knowledge is prama. For every bhrama there has to be prama behind, yet to be discovered.
Means of Knowledge
There are at least three accepted means of knowledge for any object. (According to Advaita there are actually six means of knowledge – see the essay on adhyAsa.) The three are: pratyakSha (perception), anumAna (inference) and shabda (verbal authority). Here, shabda is taken to mean shAstra or science - scriptures come under this category or shAstra – i.e. shruti based: that what you hear from a teacher through the use of appropriate words to convey that knowledge.
Perceptual knowledge is gained through the senses - eyes to see form and color, ears to hear, etc. Each one is specific to its own field. Eyes cannot hear and ears cannot see etc. This brings another property of pramANa. Each means of perception is very specific in its field and one cannot apply another means to gain that knowledge. One perhaps can establish the form by the sense of touch - but one has to be careful about the conclusion otherwise it may be like six blind men describing an elephant.
anumAna or inference comes next. That which cannot be established directly by pratyakSha can be established by anumAna. The classical example is: there is fire on that distant hill since I see smoke on the hill. One is not able to see the fire directly. If he can, then anumAna or logic is not necessary or it is redundant. For inference to be valid, one needs to have a prior knowledge of the concomitant relation between smoke and fire, namely that wherever there is smoke there must be fire. This relation has been previously established by pratyakSha pramANa - perceptual knowledge.
Now let us take an example of heaven or hell. One cannot establish the existence of heaven or hell by perception or by inference. The only pramANa is the word of the scriptures. I don’t need the scriptures to tell me that there is heaven and hell or a life after death or a life before death if I can see directly that this is so by pratyakSha or if I can logically infer this by anumAna. This also means that I can neither validate the scriptures not invalidate them using pratyakSha or anumAna, since the subject of the inquiry does not fall in the realm of these pramANa-s.
But why should I accept the scriptures? I need not but that also means that I have no means to invalidate them either. This is where faith comes into picture. Here we use the word Astika for someone who has faith in the word of the scriptures and nAstika for one who has no faith in them. (Astika also means one who believes that He (God) exists (asti). na asti means ‘does not exist’, hence nAstika).
Faith vs. Belief
I will provide one operative definition here: Faith is that which is not illogical but is not yet established as factual and hence is subject to verification later. It is like the working hypothesis that a seeker or a scientist makes before he confirms by experimentation whether it is true or not. All research proposals are based on this working hypotheses or faith in the proposition and the means of investigation.
Let us take an example - Atman (self - or soul in some scriptures). Is there an Atma or soul? Now neither pratyakSha nor anumAna can prove the existence of a soul. Hence shabda or scriptures alone becomes a valid means of knowledge for that. One has faith (not belief) in the existence of a soul, since one cannot logically dismiss its existence but at the same time cannot logically establish it either. Free-will also comes under this category. Interestingly the same applies to consciousness - neither pratyakSha nor anumAna logically establishes the existence of consciousness but at the same time they cannot logically disprove its existence either.
During the war on Iraq, we heard accounts of what was happening from the news reporters. We had faith in their reports. We had faith that they were reporting what they saw and faith that they had no reason to lie and were reporting facts as they saw and experienced them. But our faith goes down the drain if another reporter, in whom we also have faith, contradicts this previous reporter. On the other hand, we accept it as knowledge if the second and third reporters confirm the statements of the first one.
In this example, we do not have direct perceptual knowledge of the facts, nor can we logically deduce the facts. The only source of knowledge is shabda - the words of the authority.
Now let us take the reports of the Iraqi Information Minister. Firstly, he was contradicting the statements of the other reporters. Secondly, we knew that he had a vested interest in communicating false information and thirdly his statements were not confirmed by reporters in whom we did have faith.
In this simple example, it would have been possible (in theory) to establish the truth of the reports through direct perception. In the case of matters such as the nature of the Self, the knowledge is not available to pratyakSha or anumAna and we have to rely on shabda.
vedAnta as pramANa
Of all the scriptures vedAnta (upaniShad-s) occupy a unique role. This is not just because Hindus believe that it they were not written by man (apaurusheya) but because of the message it conveys. Besides providing the knowledge of the truth that cannot be known by other pramANa-s, it does not contradict other scriptures of the world. Furthermore, it is not illogical though, at the same time, what it tells is beyond logic and of course beyond perception too.
The mahAvAkya-s are the great statements of the vedAnta:
praj~nAnam brahma - consciousness is infiniteness.
Tat tvam asi - you are that consciousness which is infiniteness
ayam Atma brahman - that ‘you’, to which we are referring is not body, mind and intellect but the essence of your self. The self is that infiniteness and of course is consciousness.
aham brahma asmi - I am that Brahman. This is the conclusion to which the seeker comes through contemplation of the first three statements.
To throw more light on the subject, there are additional definitions of Brahman in the shruti:
Brahman is sat chit Ananda - existence, consciousness and bliss
Brahman is satyam j~nAnam anantam – truth, knowledge and infinite
Brahman is also equated to Isvara: -
yato vA imAni bhUtAni jAyante |
yena jAtAni jIvanti |
yatprayantyabhisaM vishanti |
- that from which the world rose, by whom it is sustained and into which it returns
Brahman also has the incidental qualification of ‘taTasta lakshaNa’ - cause of the universe.
The vedAnta consists of reports from reporters who are reporting (as though) from Brahman state. Faith comes into the picture because reporter after reporter who experienced that state confirmed the previous reports as true and added some more to them - these are the upaniShad-s. There are no beliefs or commandments, only facts as they saw them.
In the bRRihadAraNyaka U., a sage teaches his wife: “when the husband says that he loves his wife, he does not really love his wife but he loves himself - what he loves is the happiness that his wife brings and therefore he really loves the happiness which is himself”. These statements are logical and at the same time tell us something more - since one can love that which brings happiness only if one loves oneself, that self should be of the nature of happiness alone. It is unconditional love since for any other love there is a ‘because’. But love for oneself is absolute, since it is limitless or infinite or Brahman!
Proof of vedAnta
One swami told an interesting story: a man suddenly became blind due to some strange disease. He went to one doctor after another and tried all sorts of medicines. He was even operated upon yet he remained as blind as before. Every means he tried became invalid failed. He was getting frustrated and became vexed with all the promises of the doctors. At last he was taken to one famous surgeon, who said that he could cure the disease. After much coaxing he agreed to the operation. After the operation, the doctor came to the patient saying: ‘Congratulations - the operation went successful and now I will open your bandage’. The surgeon removed all the coverings and asked the patient to open his eyes.
The patient said he would not open his eyes unless the doctor promised that the operation had really been successful and would guarantee that his eyesight has been restored, since in the past he had been so disappointed by the promises of so many doctors. The surgeon said that all indications were that the operation had been successful but that he could not know for certain until the patient opened his eyes and discovered that he could see.
Still, the patient refused to open his eyes unless the doctor assured him that this particular operation had also been fully successful. Now the doctor could not provide any further proof other than telling the stories of how successful other similar patients had been and assuring the patient that there was no reason to doubt that this operation had also been successful. But the real success of the operation could only be established by the patient opening the eyes and testing whether he can see or not.
Proof of vedAnta is exactly like that. It provides a means to know but the knowledge has to be gained by the seeker through his self-effort. Hence it tells us that one has to do manana (reflection) and nididhyAsana (meditation) after hearing (shravaNa) the facts from the teacher.
Great mahAtma-s, from time immemorial to the present day, only confirmed that what vedAnta says is indeed true. Hence it becomes a valid pramANa for this knowledge, which is beyond perception and logic.
Regarding the words of other masters
Take the example of the report of the Iraqi information minister. If his reports state the same thing as the other reporters in whom we have faith, then naturally we accept that his reports are true, since it is confirmation of the reports of the others whom we all relay. But if he contradicts the reports of those in whom we have greater trust, then naturally we do not accept them as true since we cannot independently establish their truth by other pramANa-s or means of knowledge. Hence it is accepted in our tradition that we accept all those teachers as valid teachers who endorse the statements of the scriptures, whether or not they are Hindus. We do not accept those that contradict the statements of the scriptures – these teachers cannot be validated.
Traditional teachers are called ‘sampradAya’ teachers (traditional doctrine transmitted from one teacher to another) - in the sense that their statements do not contradict the shAstra-s. It can be complimentary but not contradictory. Hence Shankara defines - faith or shraddha in the vivekachUDAmaNi:
shAstrasya guru vAkyasya satya buddhava dhArana - sa shraddhA - faith is accepting that the scriptures and the interpretations of these by the teachers are indeed true (subject, of course, to self-validation, as in a ‘working hypothesis’).
Scripture alone becomes a pramANa or means of knowledge - for me to know that I am not only sat (existence) and chit (consciousness) but also Ananda and ananta (happiness / infiniteness) i.e. Brahman.
This cannot be established by any other means. Hence faith in the scripture becomes the means for self-knowledge. Since this experience of the truth about oneself, the subject of the inquiry, is not objective, there can be no valid objective means of discovering it. We cannot rely upon the subjective experiences of any teacher
(however much he may be telling the truth) since we cannot independently evaluate by any other means if the statements of that teacher are statements of facts. I can have a belief in him but that is personal. On the other hand if that teacher confirms that his experience is in tune with vedAnta, then the faith in the teacher comes from the faith in the scriptures. Hence Shankara himself insists on shAstrasya guruvAkyasya - shAstra comes first for validation.
You should not have blind faith in any scriptures - vedAnta never insists on that - but do not reject the statements of vedAnta. Conclusion without experimentation is unscientific. First listen and understand what it says and then contemplate on it to see if it is true or not. The ball is in your court - to prove vedAnta is not correct

Hinduism

 

Hindu Religion is like a Banyan tree with many branches and roots. The branch of a banyan tree
develops its own roots when it is fully grown. The branches of Hinduism such as Vaishnavam,
Shivam, Sakthism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc. have developed their own deep roots. Though there are
many branches, roots, leaves and flowers, the banyan tree is only one! Hinduism, like the banyan
tree is a single unified entity with diversified beliefs and customs. Hinduism strongly emphasizes
swadharma (Values based on individual beliefs). Hindu faith is often known as "Sanaatana
Dharma" (that which is ancient and eternal). Hindu Dharma requires Hindus to respect and sustain
their environment! Dharma is a pledge to lead a harmonious life without disturbance to peace in
the nature!

Hindu Scriptures
Hindu Scriptures are broadly classified into Sruti (heard and transmitted), Smriti (remembered and
collated), Itihaasa (epics), Purana (stories and values) and Aagma (temple related rules for prayers,
rituals and construction). Vedas constitute Sruti. The four Vedas: Rig, Saama, Yajur and Atharva
are treasured as the most ancient heritage and Hindus believe that Vedas are eternal and never
created! The subject-matter of Vedas is classified into three categories: Karma, Upasanaa, and
jnana. Karma discusses obligations of each individual. Upasanaa provides guidance for divine
communion and worship. Jnana is the philosophical disquisition about Brahman, the supreme
reality. These philosophical discussions in the last portions of each Veda are known as Upanishads.
Scriptures, compiled by the great sages, Yajnavalkya, Manu and Parasara are known as Smriti .
Itihasa comprises of the two epics: Ramayana and Mahabharata written respectively by sages
Valmiki and Vedavyasa. Vedavyasa also wrote the eighteen Puranas and eighteen
Upa(sub)-puranas. Each purana emphasizes a specific Hindu value and dramatizes a story with a
virtuous hero, an evil villain, and supporting characters on either side! In general, the hero is a
favored deity, who represents the Supreme Reality and others become demigods and play
subordinate roles. Aagmas define elaborate rules for temple construction and rules for conducting
rituals and prayers in the temple premises.

Relevance of Temples in Hindu Religion and Culture
Throughout Indian history, temples have exercised an enormous influence on religious and social
life, and traditions. Famous Hindu temples such as Somanathpur had enormous wealth and became
targets of foreign invasions. The Hindu temple is a place of worship like any other but it has unique
features that elevate it to a greater spiritual excellence and appreciation. Orthodox temples are built
according to Aagmas and the sacred ones are located in higher altitudes on top of hills. Elevated
temples symbolize the importance of spirituality over worldly life. Kings and rich citizens in the
community provided generous funds to the construction and maintenance of temples. Temples have
contributed to the employment of architects, artisans, sculptors, and laborers. The shrines and
icons have given peace to the frustrated minds. Music, dance and fine arts programs including
religious and musical discourses staged in the temples have encouraged musicians, dancers,
dramatists, artists and religious scholars. The granaries of temples were used to feed the hungry,
and temple buildings have provided shelters to both scholars and students. Some temples were
equipped to provide medical services to the sick, elderly, and disabled. Thus, temples have provided
a variety of religious and social services and reinforced economic and social welfare of the Indian
society. Hindu temples in the U.S. and Canada act as cultural ambassadors and provide spiritual
and educational services to the Indian Community.
The temple also portrays God in the cosmic form. The statue of Nataraja (dance pose of Lord Siva)
is a well known example for the artistic, scientific and philosophical significance of idols. Hundreds
of articles and books have been written about the significance of the Nataraja's dance posture. In
the PBS show, COSMOS, Professor Carl Sagan asserts that the dance of Nataraja signifies the cycle
of evolution and destruction of the cosmic universe (Big-Bang Theory). The dance statue of
Nataraja is a symbolic representation of Vedanta. The dwarfish demon crushed under the feet
represents the demonic ego, which prevents humans to attain the inherent peace and bliss within.
The ego should be crushed to regain the Supreme Bliss! A more complete description is beyond the
scope of this article, and is therefore omitted.

Hindu Philosophy in a Nutshell
Vedanta, the starting premise of Hindu Religion, asserts that Brahman (the abstract God) is the
Absolute Truth. Brahman has multiple roles to play: the creator, the maintainer, and the destroyer
all in one. Vedanta states that the universal soul, Brahman is eternal and the individual human
soul, Atman ultimately unifies with Brahman. Advaita implies the ultimate identity of Brahman
(Universal soul) and Jivatman (human soul). Dwaita opposes advaita on almost all points and
maintains an ultimate diversity of Brahman and Jivatman. Visistadvaita (qualified non-duality)
maintains a crucial differentiation as well as a fundamental identity.
The Hindu philosophy and logic provide unassailable strength to the concept of the fundamental
unity in the worship of a multitude of gods. Hinduism is highly individualistic and Hindus love the
freedom to worship their personal choice of an icon to visualize the abstract Brahman. That
explains the rapid growth of temples, gods, and rituals across India and beyond. Even illiterate
villagers are proud and enthusiastic to elaborate on stories about their temple gods and their
significance. Such stories invariably are more adventurous and heroic than "Superman" episodes,
but with a divine touch. The temple epitomizes God in a spiritual form and the various parts of his
body symbolizes philosophical concepts. It serves as the symbolic link between Human and God,
between Material and Spiritual and between Obvious and Ideal. Names of the miscellaneous
segments of the temple designate different organs of the human body (garbhagraha (Sanctum
Sanctorium) represents the human heart).

Purpose of Hindu Symbolism
The symbolism in Hinduism is analogous to the modern communication methods adopted by the
computer industry. They both adjust to the diverse tastes and needs of the world. Only a small
segment of the general public look for sophistication and special features. The common folk who
are in the majority, demand simple illustrations and practical examples rather than lengthy logic!
The computer industry employs creative graphic displays of "icons" to satisfy the general public.
Hindu symbolism seems to imply that it does not believe in a one-size-fits-all theory! Artistic
temples with idols, heroic stories, and colorful rituals demonstrate this fact. Educated Hindus may
grasp a lot more from such symbolism, and unravel philosophical and spiritual truths of Vedanta.
Puranic stories create role models by dramatization of legendary events to preserve social ethics
(Dharma). An ideal spouse, parent, offspring, or teacher is orchestrated to help the society to
conduct its daily duties (nithya karma). Hinduism has perfected the art of symbolism as a powerful
media to teach complex philosophical ideas to the common man. The communication of values
using the puranic stories in Hinduism, resemble the case study procedures in business management
institutions.

Karma Theory
"Karma Theory" in Hindu Religion has lots of resemblance to modern economic theory. According
to Karma theory, "good" and "bad" can be accumulated and a net balance can be maintained. If
the net balance is positive (more "good" and less "bad") then the person is rewarded with good
deeds. If the net balance becomes negative, the person is punished with bad deeds. Karma theory
assumes more than one life, and an individual can choose to make sacrifices in the present life to
gain better life during next birth! When a person lives a sinful life, then he is likely to get an inferior
life during the next birth. The economic theory rationalizes the personal "saving" and "borrowing"
behavior of the public. Those who save have to make sacrifices during the current time in order to
live comfortably during another time. Those who borrow money also accept the outcome from such
actions!

It is quite reasonable for some one to ask the validity of karma theory. Who keeps the account of
'good' and 'bad?' There are several explanations for those inter generational accounts and
transactions! Let me try to explain my viewpoint on karma theory. I believe that there are no
external judges! Time is a human concept and in "pure religion", there is no time! Once we include
time, we all experience birth and death at every instant! Our behavior can't be predicted for the
next moment. We do remember what we did yesterday. We do recognize that whatever we
experience today is influenced by what we did before! Karma theory implies that what we do today
has strong influence on what is going to happen tomorrow! If we clean our house today it will have
a cleaner look than otherwise. Also a dirty house today will be also dirtier tomorrow! Karma
theory, like the modern economic theory, rationalizes the human behavior in a nutshell.

 

 

 

The world is as real as you and I are - so long our mind exists. It has an empirical reality. When Sankara
says it is a myth and a dream, it is so from the absolute point of view. His different orders of reality have
to be understood well if we want to give sensible meanings to statements like Brahman is the Absolute
Truth, the universe is a myth, Brahma Satyam, Jagat Mithyaa. Once the mind merges itself in the infinite,
when we have been awakened by the Absolute Consciousness overpowering us, we are then no more in
the dreaming state and to such an awakened soul the world is indeed a dream and myth!
The story on King Janaka's dream can help us additional clarifications. Janaka had a dream that he was a
beggar on the street. He suddenly woke up and started wondering who he was? He asked this question:
Who is real - Janaka the king or Janaka the beggar ? In the waking stage, Janaka the king appears real and
Janaka the begger is a dream. At the realized stage (Absolute), Janaka the king and the begger both become
unreal! This example is just to illustrate the conceptual difficulty in understanding the difference between
absolute and relative stages: Until we become the absolute, we can't resolve the question whether Janaka
the King is also a dream!

The true nature of sun gets distorted due to the presence of clouds. Similarly, our true nature (Brahman) is
distorted due to the presence of ignorance (Maayaa). When we experience our true nature (self-realization),
we can understand that the world is Maayaa. The Shastras say that one has to go beyond the intellect to
understand one's true nature. Examples such as the snake and the rope is an illustration so that we can
understand the Advaitic Concept within our intellect. Shankara knows the limitations of examples and
limitations the intellect. How is it possible to go beyond the intellect using the intellect? The answer is quite
simple. We have seen the pole-vault jumpers who use the pole to go beyond the height of the pole! Faith is
another important input to go beyond the intellect. Let me state this beautiful quotation from St. Augustine:
"Faith is to believe what we don't see, and its reward is to see what believe!"