Our obsession with formlessness

There has always been a trend in the thinking of intellectuals. Intellectuals here as per my definition are people who are well-read in the worldly sense and have formed opinions based on careful reasoning, deep thinking and are reasonably open and rational. These people are not fundamentalists but refuse to believe anything without an agreeable justification - fair enough. For a long time in the history of religion and spirituality, there have been intellectuals who opposed to seeing God in a form. They either think it is too narrow a definition for someone so big like God or the other side which thinks that people who believe in Idols and God as an entity have still got to grow up! Reasonable thinking, I would say, because believing in an idol or a form might run the risk of limiting one's view of this world to force-fit in to that picture. They believe that people judge right or wrong by benchmarking against that idol (or a book!). So there were people who started Arya Samaj and the great saints of Advaitha philosophy. Although in different streams, both rubbished the need for idols. "When the God is You and You is Him", why need an idol they would ask.

But laymen like me never could comprehend this argument beyond a limit. I always thought everyone lives by holding on to an idol. For, what are ideals if not a different form of idol? We all live by a certain ideology and that is idol worship. These ideas/ideals can change but when you leave it you are either dead or you don't need it anymore for you yourself have become that idol. That is when we leave it. The only way we can move beyond idol/ideal/idea worship is to just not have any ideals or ideas, to live without the need of them for judgment, to live without the need for argument - for you don't see the difference anymore; Because you see the same thing in every voice and in every idea. But as long as you hold on to a thought as yours, consider it right and feel the need to express it as different from others, you have already made an idol out of it.

But what is wrong with idols anyway? Why should it be intellectually demeaning to accept that my entire life is revolving around an idol? There was an interesting argument that Lissome put forth in her blog for proving that she is an atheist - in her stern refusal to call anything incomprehensible as God. She says that it is being lazy and intellectually blunt and people hide behind the name of God to cover this up. I personally think that is a gross
generalization. There are millions of people around me as I see who are just like the other atheists as per her description, rational logical open and true and everything associated but are real stern believers in God. They are just calling that way of life as God-intended. What is wrong with having a name and living a way of life and still living the same without that name? And also not everyone who is a theist fears God and does behave in a way to be rewarded later in other life. So do they become atheists with this new definition? And what is at the root of our desperation to name everything and then discuss over definitions? I do that all the time too, but I know that is the reason for any difference I feel with the person next to me or a blog next to me - a name and its definition.

That makes me wonder how could Sri Ramakrishna become all-loving and a wonderful soul by talking to the Maa Kali idol in that small, dilapidated temple? How could Ramana Maharshi not differ with millions of people who discussed/argued with him by silently staring at the hill of Arunachala?

I concluded that we as humans need the forms and descriptions but definitions are what push of us away from one another. Probably that is the reason I bumped into reading this paragraph just yesterday in blog when my ind was thinking about this!

"When I approach Thee regarding Thee as having form, Thou standest as a Hill on earth. If with the mind the seeker looks for Thy (essential) form as formless, he is like one who travels the earth to see the (ever-present) ether. To dwell without thought upon Thy (boundless) nature is to lose one's (separate) identity like a doll of sugar when it comes in contact with the ocean (of nectar); and when I come to realize who I am, what else is this identity of mine (but Thee), O Thou Who standest as the towering Aruna Hill. - Sri Arunachala Ashtakam"

Some time back Satan was the flavor of the blog world with Prototype X (http://iamsociety.rediffiland.com/blogs/2008/05/10/Worlds-Greatest-Villain-Paradox.html) , Lissome (http://lissome.rediffiland.com/blogs/2008/05/30/THE-MARRIAGE-OF-HEAVEN-AND-HELL.html) writing brilliantly and thoroughly about the dark side of the world. These posts and some really awesome History Channel Series called "Exorcism: Driving out the Devil" got me thinking as to why India did not have major dark ages of exorcism and mass murdering in the name of Satan. Why the western observers while branding Indians as backward with superstitious, pantheistic, pagan worshipper tags missed the conspicuous bright spot of ancient and medieval India's civilization and religion - the absence of a real Satan in the literature. Yes, I agree that there have been discriminations, humiliations and awful customs that distanced people and communities from one another in the name of caste or in the name of
Shaivite/Vaishnavite and so on, but never in the name of the Devil or a Satan.

How could it have been possible? Not that we don't have Ghosts in our folk tales or Rakshasas in our mythology (history? ;-) of Ramayana and Mahabharata. We too had our share of evil people to make the stories more interesting and making our hero's deeds, truly heroic. But never are these characters attributed to human beings to be killed and tortured in the name of exorcism as in the medieval Europe. My take on that is here!

For one, Indian Hinduism never branded the alternate way of life, as evil. It is just an alternate way of life, a different way to reach God or God in a different manifestation. I am no expert but as they say there are three Gunas: Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic but without the three the world is just incomplete. While being a insightful scientific premise about the nature of matter (in matter, energy and the inertia), this at the same time was a master stroke at bringing in harmony in the society and I believe is at the root of tolerance by real Hindu definitions. So Aghoras can eat meat, drink alcohol and live next to human corpses but Hindus never deny the sect as not theirs. Same is the case with some of the projections of Hindu gods -Shakti in her angry form, Shiva in his primordial form and so on. So much so that I vividly remember going to the village deity's temple as a kid, afraid initially but grew up to appreciate the need of God/Goddess to manifest in that state as just a terrifying really angry mom! Here Satan is an alter-ego standing on the other side to God.

Secondly, most of the real Indian way of life is not to scoff at someone who is selfish, greedy and so on, with the standard definitions of evil. It is to lovingly understand that everyone evolves at their own pace. While this has led to condescending and "You-will-take-time-to-reach-where-I-did" attitudes thrown around by "learned" and "religious" people, the intent was perfect and the concept accurate with the prerequisite assumption of reincarnation and "Every life is a lesson". So there is no place for a Satan, just a someone who would sooner or later know that hatred and greed are not the way of life.

Thirdly, the Rakshasas who could have been the Satans from our mythologies. But nope, they somehow did not become Satans. A lot of our demons are pretty talented folks with just some greedy, selfish intentions. Each one of them had their boons after a pain-staking effort that they put towards achieving it. Pretty real and practical it seems - Are these not like the perverted nuclear scientists of today's world? I love Ravana for what he is from the story of Ramayana. An impeccable devotee of Lord Shiva, probably a great scientist (Supposedly wrote a book on Gayatri Tantra, explaining the technique of utilizing Gayatri mantra for worldly accomplishment) and led an awesome disciplined life all the way. So much so, that there are temples in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka for this great king. So are other Rakshas kings and their Guru Sukracharya. Putting aside the reality of their existence,these characters who impacted Indian social life for long are no Satans - no good as per the original definition of Satan ;-)

Fourthly, the devils as they exist in Indian folklore. I remember that starry night while all cousins and nephews are sleeping on the terrace on a summer night, to beat the South Indian heat and smoke rising slowly from behind the trees. When all the stories of the neighbors sighting ghosts at the Banyan Tree, the Reddy girl who committed suicide in the village lake, and all the stories rushing together putting that smoke into context and the scare that caused, the screams that were let out and the commotion that ensued! I am sure every Indian kid has a similar ghost story to tell which he heard from their grand- parents or people they know in the village. While exorcism and related beating with neem leaves is common in a lot of Indian village, Ghosts as my grandma told me are souls finding no rest. They are troubled people and they need our prayers for a safe travel forward. Anyway, my assumption is that while a lot of Indians are scared of ghosts, this the basic attitude they carry towards ghosts and other beings of that family ;-) The person is never put to death as an acceptable way of Indian exorcism. While I don't push my ideas on to other people, most of my personal beliefs on this space are formed listening to my really knowledgeable grandma and a few books I picked up as per my interest -For instance, a book called "Astral Plane by C.W.Leadbeater")

My knowledge of the Satan in Islam is limited but I like their description for Jinns (esp. Iblis) as someone - ".....not
considered to be a 'fallen' angel, but a jinn who was among the ranks of angels due to his wisdom and piety; in Islamic belief, angels always follow God's commands, but jinns (like humans) have free will, which explains why Satan was able to rebel against God's command of bowing to Adam" (Courtesy Wikipedia)

So from a purely Indian perspective, I think it is unnecessary to debate about Satan for we never acknowledged his existence in the first place. But as a true global citizen, let the debate go on!!

Note: My usage of the word Satan is as per the Christian definitions of medieval Europe - you know, the one with horns, a tail and the real fun guy to imitate on a Halloween!

Time to Reconcile

This piece of writing is inspired by the Talks by Lee Brown and Dan Katchongva on the "Prophecies of Hopi Indians"

While our pure animal instinct drove a lot of this judgment, our intellect helped us analyze and make a knowledge base out of it. Intellect built on instinct as a foundation and made us better than our brethren in the animal community. Using different colors, different words and different ex-pressions - we built on our animal instincts to go beyond basic ex-pression of fear, love and hunger. This intellect made us creative in ways that are quite different from a lot of other animals- in our communication and in ex-pression of our thoughts. At the root of our world today as we perceive it is the difference.

While this ability to identify differences is a gift to us as humanity, it is surely nature's gift for it
chose to express itself so very differently. Without different colors, we would not be able to walk on our alleys and without different sounds and reverberations, even the bats in the dark can never know where they are. Initially a tool for survival, I believe that over time, this ability to identify differences has grown in to a mental obsession in us humans. This obsession with identifying and judging differences has sharpened human intellect and created various schools of thought, of philosophy and art forms rich with subtlety. Our words and ex-pressions grew manifold to capture this multitude of differences. So a smile is different from a simper, and a simper is different from a smirk. So it is in art forms like painting and singing and dancing and so on. And don't even get me started on the number of different animal, plant and viral species we have identified to date and the differences in how they sleep, what they eat and where they live and when they mate. That is quite an achievement by any standard that we understand the nature deeply and the myriad different ways in which it manifests all around us.

But I think the time has come to move on. We now understand and appreciate that all of us are unique in our own way. Any more time spent on finding and showing that we are different is useless. The time now is to identify our similarities. How I am so much like you and you like that colleague in office who you hate so much! How I go through the same emotional crests and troughs like you do. To accept each other as a part of one human race and we as humans as a part of this large diverse family that inhabits this planet. It is time we work on finding similarities, that one thing that connects all of us on this planet and to identify that similarity. Appreciating differences without identifying with those, I believe, is the new revolution in thought that is destined for this century.

All of us know how historically we have had diverse civilizations communicating sparsely with each other and the knowledge of one another only being through the travelers and tradesmen. How we fought over petty differences and an animal instinct to overpower and to exercise control on neighbors, how we resorted to holocausts and nuclear weapons. But we are being pushed to an edge now by the nature because we have failed to learn our lessons. Like a mother, for cajoling did not work, we are being threatened by nature to work towards identifying similarities - to identify and care how all of us in our own way have messed up the planet.

We are 8 years in to the new millennium and a new century and if someone asks me now what I love this century to be remembered for, I would say "While the previous century or two have been awesome in understanding the differences and myriad forms of universe and their working, this one should be remembered for us waking up to realizing the essential oneness in those forms!" I strongly
believe that the long tortuous human history has occurred and worked to prepare us for this moment that we are standing at today.

This is a time where each one of us individually decides the fate of our collective future, probably not just of us but of the generations to come.

The fact that I am fascinated with Osho dates back a long way. From the funny video that I watched back in college on the creative usage of the four letter word to the most subtle truths of life on Awareness, Intuition and Intelligence. Osho has been at the background of my quest. Osho and UG Krishnamurthy are two people who constantly hold my thinking on spiritual lines from falling into blind faith. They make my quest more lively and beautiful.

The idea of being true to yourself and at the same time not being harsh on yourself is a seemingly simple but revolutionary thought. I think the world and the people in it cannot be denied however bad or unconventional they are from your perspective and definitions. Denial of problems and people who are constantly around us is real sleep and not any awakening! My understanding of the texts is
"It is coexistence that is required and not denial or condemnation".

Osho lived with a community of people usually low on moral standards as the society defines it today! He was one of them of naked youth with LSD and Marijuana, unrestricted sex and multiple partners. A world most of the people shiver even thinking about. Can any pure thought stem out such an environment? Can you meditate in that setting? They were all people who fell wayward, who lost themselves along the way! But that still does not lead me to reject him as a Guru. His thoughts and books are what matters, whether written under the influence of Valium or Nitrous Oxide does not really matter to me.

People say he was self-contradicting and reckless with what he said. But I think he reveled in inconsistency and paradox. It is impossible to box him. He was not the usual Guru, one who stuck to principles and methods advocating purity and sanctity. He was just an irreverent human being, intelligent and absurd at the same time. His words are almost mantric in nature as they flow into you as you read them. It is not reading and understanding a book, it is very different than that. I don't yet put into practice what he said but I read him anyway just for the lovely feeling of reading. And in all those books that I have read till now, no other comes close. No other book makes me feel the futility of using my mind while reading.

His thinking unconventional and questions direct, answers simple and self-forgiving. He challenges everything around that is considered as the Way to God! For there is no God. Buddha never saw God, he felt Silence and saw the logic behind. And that silence is felt when you give up rules and expectations. When you stop thinking that you are running out of time. Slap the guy who said Life is short! Accepting the theory of reincarnation makes us all more forgiving and enjoy our present moment heartily. It gives us time of multiple births, millions of years to err and to correct. To become better without ever feeling guilty of missing it today. As Osho says in one of the books to feel guilty that you have missed being aware is also useless. After all, it takes time to change and to become more understanding of this world and its subtle ways, what is important is that we are genuinely doing our best in the present moment.

As most of his devout followers say "You would love Osho!" There is no other word, I Love Osho! That is the word - not respect or appreciate.

Who am I?
One of those devils that lure
Or Am I the Buddha, peaceful & pure?

Am I that
Which laughed at others?
Or Am I that
Which cried for those sisters & brothers?

Am I a nature's weird chemical probability?
Or as they say, a source of infinite possibility?
Am I the one full of love and full of fear?
Or just a bundle of contradictions, far and near!

Am I the world's powerful thought?
Or lost in it, just a stupid naught?

What is this Truth?
And why do you push me on to know it?
For, Now I believe, to know is not to be!

I had known
Jasmine from a Rose,
Poetry from a Prose!
Love and hate,
Fear and Fate!

Knowing all, I never seem to be done!
A lot I know, and sadly now, I can be none!

Seems it does not help much to know!
To be continually born and to grow!
So now, why should I know me?
For to know, it seems my friend, is not to be!

So I guess for now,
I would stop to try Knowing myself
And just stick to truly Being myself!

Inspired by: Osho's "Awareness"

Faith and Skepticism

It has been an old debate possibly still around just because we fail to comprehend the meaning of the word "Faith". Faith is roughly defined as an unconditional acceptance of a premise. Skepticism while at the opposite end is defined as viewing everything with a sense of doubt and lens of reason. So when I say "I have faith in God!" Skeptics jump up and say "Show me God!" So while reams of arguments are exchanged between the two communities, we have barely reached anywhere close to a conclusion on any topic which involves Faith. The primary reason is in the definitions itself. Faith has no reason and skepticism requires you to show a reason and
proof to stop the argument.

Now even on iland we see a lot of people writing on topics of faith and a whole bunch who rubbish or undermine those faiths. I personally think skeptics exist because of faith ;-) For with no 'faith', there is nothing to be skeptical about. When we understand everything, there is nothing to question. But that requires everyone to know the reason behind everything. See that sentence very challenging! As long as everyone does not know reason behind everything, faith loyalists and skeptics continue to waste time or make a living based on what they do ;-) Ok what is my point? I personally feel uncomfortable with the discussions on faith more so in their current form they are conducted, atleast most of them.

There are two key sentences left out in these discussions: something called "Healthy Skepticism" and "Open Faith". Two phrases which seemingly go against the beliefs both the communities hold about the definitions and are at the root of most wars or blog-abuse.

First the Skeptics: Even the greatest of scientific experiments of the world assume atleast one hypothesis as true. Without that, there can never be a result or a proof from the experiment. That hypothesis is his Faith. You can or should never question that faith for your entire experiment would be rendered useless if you do. So every human being, in my opinion, should hold one faith atleast. Otherwise the greatest rationalist can be reduced to a nuisance when questioned continuously and intelligently. Without faith, how do we live our normal lives? People have faith in the doctor and his knowledge so if he says please amputate this leg, people willingly let go of their legs! So dear skeptics, Faith is a good thing.

Next the faith loyalists: When does a faith stop being a personal thing? I personally think it is only when your /our faith questions the next person's right to holding his faith. Till that point you can hold any faith that you want. But Faith does not mean stagnation. It means growth based on strength of that belief. Faith on earth's gravity gives you an opportunity to try jumping up. A great faith is one that gives a platform to stand on and constantly try new things beyond it. Faith is constantly built upon and that is how knowledge blooms. Trying out new things is an outcome of that healthy skepticism. Without skepticism or questioning why, Faith stagnates. I believe a real 'believer' (only an English word!) is one who allows his Faith to be questioned for a question would make his Faith stronger or he would have an opportunity to adopt a 'Faith' that is stronger.

But what puzzled my already troubled mind is this instance reported in April from Texas of a social group that believed in polygamy, Yearning for Zion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFZ_Ranch . This group's building was raided by police on charges of child abuse and close to 400 children taken away from their parents who believed in polygamy. The girls inside that church are married to multiple older men and are expected to bear children and live in a polygamous closed society. It is a seemingly inhuman situation to be in and people world over rejoiced that the cult's society was destroyed and disrupted.

But are we right in doing that? I might be treading the most controversial line here - but who are we to decide how a bunch of people live their lives? They have not stolen from homes or killed anyone with bombs, and then what gives us a right to invade their private living and decide how they should raise their kids? Who are we to decide that the living conditions inside that house are inhuman if the inmates themselves, rightly or wrongly, do not believe so? The people in that society believe that they are living their life as per God's will. Who gives us a right to disrupt their belief even if it is a false one? Can we do that with multiple polygamous tribes living in the African and South American forests?

Where should the Faith be asked to stop? And when can society intervene? This seemingly simple question has great ramifications, my friends, right from War in Iraq to Africa be it a war to give someone independence or give a nation its democracy!

I got a comment from VT, for not being, in the face with spirituality in my earlier blog. I thought that is being too nice to me. So I wanted to post something that is more in the face, just to make it public that I too like all of us, am full of contradictions and have a right to be so ;-) So here comes an extreme leftist view for a question one of my friends asked me in a casual discussion "Is it that everything is predestined in this world?" It is a question that lot of us answer in ways that convince us and suit our thought process and belief systems.

An extreme individualist will say "No, everything around me is what I choose it to be and brought about by my decisions!" and an extreme spiritualist "Yes, someone from somewhere up there decides why you do what you do!" I stick to the first view but with a slight difference, the difference that we don't make too many decisions, really. We only make one decision "Will I realize and learn or not?" For, this entire life seems to be a sequence of situations cleverly arranged for you to learn something (My take on what it is follows later!). And it is your decision, your free will, whether you want to learn or not! That is the only decision that we make, with our free will, whatever that might be!

Warning: If you are running out of time, you can leave now! For I want to make that short story long just out of intellectual curiosity. The views expressed are purely personal and you can vehemently agree or disagree.

How did we human beings come about?

While scientists, astronomers and every one figure it out through equations and astral dust, I believe the world started from a Single Point a concentration of tremendous energy and an active mind for itself. (See the beautiful posts by Aham, "God, The Enigma" and "The Cosmic Dance", one of my favorite ilanders who is no longer active) Regarding the nature of Single Point and the behavior of objects in Singularity as in Black Holes, you can refer any research on Wikipedia or for simpler language read Sarath's blogs at http://probabilityisgod.rediffiland.com

So that the single point in its deep sleep/meditation/idle-state had a question of what it will be like if I was not I and if I were to look as something else. Will I still be I? I have no idea who knows why he had that question and what triggered that. My thinking process has not answered that yet. And when HE 'materialized' He/It, by definition, lost a degree of freedom. Singularity loses (gains, from a matter perspective?) degrees of freedom as it manifests as matter. So now that he saw himself as matter, he had two choices- to go back to singularity from that single degree of freedom or multiply and increase the degrees of freedom (from a matter perspective!)

A'separate' matter always has its free will as defined by the degrees of freedom gained and a connection to singularity. One degree of freedom is the lowest number of degrees like probably in minerals very little freewill and most actions still decided by Singularity or matter of higher degrees of freedom (like Plants, Animals & Humans). But there the connection to Singularity then is the Strongest. (No Wonder, Animals and Plants work as Nature asks them to and Coals/Petrol takes its own sweet time to manifest!)

That brings us to higher degrees of freedom: Why did matter choose evolve into higher degrees of freedom from one? Single Point had a choice and he loves challenges. Who does not