विराट रूप पर

There are two ways of looking at the world: (1) individualistic, (2) cosmic

From the first viewpoint, there are gods (like Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, etc) who are individuals, there are hell and heaven, there are people like you and I who live and die, who have sole and body, etc.

From the second viewpoint, which is called Advaita, all these individuals - gods, men, animals, inanimate objects, etc. - are nothing but temporary formations of the same eternal being, like temporary formation of various wavelets of water that are seen on the surface of a river or ocean - of different shapes and sizes as well as durations - but having same content, that rise for a moment and mingle into the larger whole forever. This rise is called birth and mingling into the eternal whole is called death of an individual wavelet. The sole, the content, was finite at a moment (individual) and mingles into the infinite (cosmic) after some moments. The content remains, either in the limited form or in the unlimited form. The entirety of this content (the eternal unlimited ocean) is called Brahma (not Brahma the god in the first view, but the eternal one, the virat rupa). The temporary wavelet is called jeeva. 

In my opinion, the first view is unreal, meant for those who cannot think abstract. The second view is real.

That which knows to grow into a big banyan tree - with all its details - from a minute seed, that which knows to become a fully grown up human being from a minute protozoa, those charges, called the quarks, which know to make electrons, protons, neutrons and thereafter the entire world, that which is energy and matter and both - is the Brahma. Birth and death are only changing forms of wavelets.

On spirituality and ethics.

All religions have two parts, (1) spirituality, and (2) ethics.

The basic purpose of the ethical codes (that, in details, may vary from community to community and from time to time) is to provide thumb rules for the individuals that guide them in leading their own personal as well as interpersonal (at the family as well as community) levels so that the society is stable and growing with likable traits. This is what 'dharma' means - the network of duties that holds a society together and therefore protects it from falling apart. Note that the ethics is a complex of thumb rules. If the individuals follow them, they save a lot of energy and time to determine as to their conduct in different settings. Moreover, the individuals’ conducts are reliably predictable. That saves the society  (and the individuals) a lot of time labour and energy. That keeps the society going on. Hence, ethics is a part of all religions. It has instrumental value. Also note that 'dharmo rakshati rakshitah (धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः). It everyone observes his/her duties, then only the duties remain self reinforced and the society is upheld.

However, societies are dynamic. Material conditions change. Population has been increasing. Resources and technologies have been changing. Cultures are changing. These changing things require changes in the ethical codes to uphold and efficiently run the societies. So, over time, ethics also changes, sometimes coolly and silently and at others violently. It takes some time to fit the ethical codes to suit the need of the time. But they ultimately stabilize. This dynamical adjustment is always on.

Now let us turn to spirituality. Note that of the two (reasoning and faith) faith is cheaper – to grow, maintain and spread. It is based on feelings, instincts, etc. A child, or a baby, feels warm and safe in the laps of its mother. This feeling is more basic than reasoning. Reasoning comes later, feelings come first. That is why feelings are easier to grow, maintain and spread. It affects the subconscious and springs out from the subconscious. Spirituality is there in feeling and subconscious where reasoning cannot go. It is futile to seek for rationality and reasoning in spirituality. This innate aspect of spirituality is used as a core – foundation – to establish ethics. Ethics, therefore, is often founded in spirituality.

These together make religion. Different communities have different  views of spirituality and also different views of ethics.

Unfortunately, this conjoint of spirituality and ethics has often become the tool for acquiring power – dominance of the one over the others. That breeds communal egotism and finally war, disaster and  so on. The desire to acquiring power sometimes uses the one type of tools and at others a different kind of tools. No religion is free from the people who have (and are) using religion to acquiring power.

Look at the ten commandments in the Bible (Old Testament). None can be denied even by a Hindu or Muslim or Jew. Was it not enough? But, no. The stories from Moses to Joshua to Kings to Job were needed. Then Christ, who wanted to change some of the fossilized conventions of the Jew. Was crucifixion a part of religion in its purest sense?

The conflict between God and Satan is the conflict between smooth running of the society and the lust for power.  And Satan so much vilified. If you think appropriate, read the Book of Enoch (it is free downloadable). All that you call technology – from houses to machines to cosmetics – were invented by Satan/Lucifer and his friend angels. We – and more so the religious ones among us – all hate the Satan and love his (and his friends’) inventions. Let us not use reasons. It is a matter of faith. Consistency is a characteristics of reason and not of faith.

Hinduism is no exception. Why so many sects? Why so many gods? Why so many stories? Perhaps Marx was right when he considered religion like opium.  But his comment is applicable to that part or application of religion which is used to acquire power. And no wonder, soon Marxism was turned to a religious sect.

It is fair to keep religion limited to ethics for smooth running of the society. If that purpose is lost, if religion starts destabilizing the society, interpersonal relations, family, etc., keep it at bay.

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूः मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥  (गीता)

Meaning: Your domain is action, not its results. Do not consider yourself fully responsible for the results or do not act with a belief that you will surely obtain the results commensurate to your action; nor should you therefore shrink or run away from doing your work (on account of uncertainty with which the results show up).

Interpretation: What, perhaps, Krishna wants to tell us that in between the doer's action and the results there is a long chain of other conditions. Since the cause (scholastically described)  of the result is all the negative and positive conditions taken together - the collocation and the moving power -  (including the action directed to obtain the result), there is a stochastic (in a very general sense that includes all types of measurable and not-measurable uncertainty) or unpredictable relationship between action and the result. Results are in a stochastic (so to say) range with unknown probabilities and possibilities. Therefore, one should not arrogate upon oneself either bravado or the undue blame for success or failure. One should only concentrate upon the domain of one's action. Nevertheless, one should not indulge in inaction simply because the results are uncertain. 

In a lighter vein the equation that describes results with action is: Results = f(A) + f(E), where f(A) maps the action (A) to the results and f(E) maps the environment to the results. E contains many forces with unknown probabilities and possibilities (in a fuzzy sense and a content of ambiguity and fundamental uncertainty). There are no well-known procedures to find expectations (of results).
Under this situation, the doer cannot solely be responsible for the results. However, if the doer does consider himself/herself so, either arrogating ego or a damaging discouragement will occur which would lead him/her astray.


I wonder what is there to disagree! 

यज्ञात् भवति पर्जन्यः

यज्ञात् भवति पर्जन्यः पर्जन्यात् अन्नसम्भवः।   

अन्नात् भवन्ति भूतानि (भूतानाम् जायते प्रजाः)/(यज्ञः कर्मसमुद्भवः)  ॥ (गीता)

What Krishna conveyed (to us) is perhaps as follows:

Definitions: 

Yagna (यज्ञ) : as elaborated in Gita,  yajna is any action (physical or mental) that has four components: a purpose (devata), a medium (agni, havyavah), the stuff to be sacrificed (havya) and the person (hota) who sacrifices the stuff into the medium for attaining the purpose. 

Parjanya (पर्जन्य): Environment  - Everything that surrounds.

Anna (अन्न): That (or those) which supports (not only life but the being). A being consumes and grows on the support. 

Bhuta (भूत): being (living beings in particular).

Prajah (प्रजाः): The collective of beings and their derivatives.      

  

The meaning follows: 

Any action (physical or mental) with a clear purpose pursued through a proper medium and suitable (enough) resources creates a surrounding environment that supports life (also people) as well as the state of being and the process of becoming.

I wonder what is there to disagree!