Oh My God! Re-answering the Questions – PDF E-Book

Oh My God! Re-answering the Questions – PDF E-Book

This book acknowledges questions raised by this movie and provides well-informed and logical answers to the most essential ones.

http://www.thespiritualscientist.com/oh-my-god-re-answering-the-questions-pdf-e-book/

A review of the book is here

My Review of the Movie below:

The Hindi blockbuster movie "Oh My God" has left deep impressions on many. It concludes that God exists, but denounces all traditional means of attaining Him.

The traditional means of spiritualizing ones life have been misused throughout history by cheating opportunists who commercialize religion and rob all religious and spiritual practices of its essence. While the movie rightly bashes such cheating religionists, it fails to emphasize that selfless religionists and spiritualists exist. Although the movie proclaims the existence of God, due to this one-sided presentation the movie can have the following undesirable consequences:

1. Those who are already atheists, will find a glamorous reason for remaining so.

2. Those who have faith in God, but are not serious about going deeper into spirituality, will find a glamorous reason for stagnating on whatever spiritual platform they are on.

The spiritual practices like chanting the Holy Names of God, visiting and worshiping in temples, executing the Vedic rituals, donating for a spiritual cause, and so on, provide a variety of ways in which one can stay in touch with God and make steady progress in dedicating more and more to His service. Such spiritual contact, along with study of the scriptures and association of devotees, is a joyful way of making tangible spiritual advancement. By denouncing all these time tested means, the movie is drowning all means of spiritual salvation for the masses. This is a great disservice to God.

The take-home message demeaning "Idol Worship" is a blanket statement which is so naive that only a pitifully uninformed can make.The Vedic scripture is full of detailed and elaborate sections on worshiping the form of God with love and devotion. Such worship does not have any of the negativity that the phrase "idol worship" connotes. To equate the two is to equate the Vedic authority with fools. Lord Krishna Himself instructs the process of deity worship in many prominent Vedic scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam.

Overall, this is a very well made movie, and perhaps even with good godly intentions. It raises relevant and valid questions about the prevalant state of religious commercialization. But many of the answers it provides are based neither on sound logic nor on a reasonable understanding of religion and spirituality. It's a movie which seems to talk favorably about God, but makes it very hard for its viewers to turn to God in earnest.

The God Logic

This article appeared in the November-December issue of the Back To Godhead (International) magazine.

Can scientists accept God?

Many modern scientific-minded people find it hard to accept that God exists. The scientific method consists of conducting physical experiments and verifying the results, and God just doesn't seem to fit in: He can't be produced or studied in a laboratory, His behavior can't be analyzed, His interactions with elements can't be plotted on a graph. But throughout history the realm of science has expanded, with newer tools and methods enhancing the power of experimentation and perception. It's about time we expand it more.

God and the Scientific Method

Spirituality is as scientific and logical as any branch of science. To understand how, we need to first understand the general definition of the scientific method. In principle, the scientific method consists of collecting data through observation and experimentation, and then formulating and testing a hypothesis. Subsequent experiments then try to prove or disprove the hypothesis. If the results of the experiments match the predictions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis gains credence. Otherwise, ideally at least, the hypothesis is discarded. (Unfortunately, hypotheses are often prematurely accepted as truth. The Big Bang theory and black holes are examples of this.)

We can quite easily apply the scientific method in our quest for spiritual truths. Around us in nature we see laws, design, beauty, majesty, symmetry, intricacy, and so on. We can surely hypothesize the existence of a supremely intelligent being who is the source of all that exists. Many of the most celebrated scientists and thinkers have expressed such views. For example, Isaac Newton said, "The wonderful arrangement and harmony of the cosmos would only originate in the plan of an almighty omniscient being. This is, and remains, my greatest comprehension."

The scriptures of most major religions have always asserted the existence of God. Along with assertions, they detail processes by which one can perceive God in lesser or greater degrees. For example, in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (2.9.31) Lord Vishnu says, "Knowledge about Me as described in the scriptures is very confidential, and it has to be realized in conjunction with devotional service. The necessary paraphernalia for that process is being explained by Me. You may take it up carefully."

Following scriptures and sincere devotees of God is not blind faith. It is accepting the existence of God as a sound hypothesis, and then experimenting, by following the prescribed process, to establish or disprove the hypothesis. By sincere effort on a well-documented path

revealed in the scriptures, one can perceive God.

Initially, a little bit of reasonable faith (hypothesis) is required to start off (experiment) on a path suggested by the scriptures and the devotees of God. A systematic understanding of the science of God fortifies one's faith, which strengthens even more when one sees that the results of following the process match the theory. And the fortified faith, in turn, inspires one to follow the process even more sincerely, leading to even deeper experiences of God. As with any other form of learning, a teacher advanced in the practice of the science is a must. One can take practical instructions from the teacher, ask him deep questions, and study the scriptures under his guidance. Of course, the teacher must a devotee of God; otherwise how can he guide his students toward direct perception of God? As Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-Gita (4.34), "Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth."

Direct Experience

Even though God is beyond the perception of the common man, He appreciates the sincerity of the seeker's efforts and responds accordingly. To the degree that God reciprocates, the internal world (essentially the desires) of the seeker transforms. Although direct audience with God is difficult to achieve quickly, one can reap many other tangible results in a short time, and thereby gain confidence in the scriptural instructions.

A sincere seeker's realizations are in line with the principles of the scriptures, and therefore are not hallucinations. Powerful transcendentalists in all spiritual traditions have spoken or written about their experiences with God. To discard all their experiences as irrelevant is presumptuous. Furthermore, realization of spiritual truths helps the practitioner lead a better, more meaningful life, and to have better control of his life than others. While results of material processes can be verified in a laboratory, the results of spiritual ones can be verified in the laboratory of one's own heart. Lust, greed, anger, and other dirty things in the heart reduce drastically and quickly when one practices spiritual processes. The practitioner can easily verify these internal transformations, which manifest externally in the form of positive changes in one's life. A person progressing spiritually will give up bad habits like intoxication, increase spiritual activities like prayer and meditation, and improve in qualities like patience, mercy, cleanliness, and tolerance.

Along with these changes comes the lasting joy of spiritual happiness. The practitioner discovers a positive energy driven by the lofty goal of spiritual progress and enjoys the process itself. Spiritual activities are natural to the soul, and consequently the most joyful.

These tangible results inspire the practitioner to continue following the process, leading to more results, all of which are tangible. In fact, what was abstract and theoretical yesterday

becomes practical and tangible today. What was once just the word of scripture becomes the reality of one's own life. What more proof could one ask for?

In the Bhagavad-gîtå (9.2) Lord Sri Krishna summarizes this point succinctly: "This knowledge [spiritual knowledge] is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed."

It's a Science

Following a spiritual process as described above is as scientific as the so-called scientific method. Spirituality is a verifiable science, and moreover, it is genuinely helpful to everyone who practices it. The tools and methods for practicing this science might not be prevalent in the scientific world today, but surely the ancient wisdom traditions suffered from no such handicap. Their system of logic and reasoning did not exclude God from its domain; on the contrary, all their logic was used to eventually establish the existence of God as an undeniable fact. Indeed, theirs was the God logic.

The God Logic

The following article appeared (with minor edits) in the Back To Godhead (India Edition) of January 2010.

I was sitting in my lab in the basement of the Computer Science Department in IIT Mumbai. Aditya walked in, as if in a trance, and sat down in front of his computer without even noticing me. After half an hour or so, he was still in his reverie.

“Aditya!” I called out from across the lab.

“Oh! Hi! You are here. I have been looking for you”.

I didn’t tell him that I was here for the last half an hour.

“Want to come for a walk,” I suggested. It was mid-morning of a gorgeous winter day. Streams of water came in bursts from the rotating sprinklers and sparkled brilliantly under the morning sun, and then splashed over the beautifully manicured lush green lawns inside the IIT Mumbai campus.

Aditya is a brilliant B.Tech., Computer Science student in IIT Mumbai. He is fun loving and jolly, but at the same time he is looking for answers to the deepest questions of life.

“I went to the ISKCON temple yesterday,” Aditya opened up, “and the speaker said that spirituality was as scientific and logical as any other branch of science. In what ways is spirituality scientific? Can you please explain? The answer to this question is very important to me.” I have been associated with ISKCON for a few years now, and I am also Aditya’s fellow IITian. This combination led him to me.

While walking past the lawns I collected my thoughts. I replied, “To understand this, we need to first understand what the general definition of the scientific method is. In principle, the scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. The hypotheses act as guiding light for the subsequent experiments. The results of those experiments give the hypotheses various degrees of truth. If the results of the experiments match with the predictions of the hypotheses, the hypotheses are declared as truths. Otherwise, the hypotheses are discarded.”

Aditya nodded. “So then, can we apply the scientific method in our quest for spiritual truths?” he asked.

“Yes, we can. Based on what we see around us in nature—the symmetry, the design, the laws, the beauty, the majesty, the intricacy, etc.—we can surely hypothesize the existence of a supremely intelligent being who is the source of all that exists. Since hypotheses are part of the scientific method, we are still within the realms of science. This assertion has been confirmed by many of the most celebrated scientists and thinkers that we know of. For example: Newton said, ‘The wonderful arrangement and harmony of the cosmos would only originate in the plan of an almighty omniscient being. This is and remains by greatest comprehension.’ ”

“But what about the experiments? And what about the results of those experiments? Until we get those results, God will just remain a hypothesis.” Aditya was quick to point out.

I was ready. “The Holy Scriptures of all major religions have asserted the existence of God. Along with the assertions are given the processes by following which one can perceive God in lesser or greater degrees. Therefore, all that is needed in perceiving God is sincere efforts along a well-documented path as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. The effects of following the Holy Scriptures, including the effect of being able to perceive God directly, depend a lot on the sincerity of the seeker. God knows everything, including the seeker’s sincerity, the seeker’s motivations behind approaching God, the seeker’s past deeds, and many other factors. Based on all these, God reciprocates with the seeker. Based on the degree of reciprocation by God, the internal world (essentially the desires) of the seeker surely gets transformed, whether the seeker’s external circumstances do so or not. And perception of God no longer remains mere theory. Although direct audience with God is very difficult to achieve quickly, many other tangible results are experienced in quite a short span of time, and this builds one’s confidence in the scriptural instructions.”

A cloud of doubt covered Aditya’s bright face. Meanwhile we had turned right on the main road towards the IIT Mumbai guesthouses. “But how can we be sure that what we experience is not some hallucination?”

We were going deeper and deeper into the subject matter now. I replied simply, “A sincere seeker’s realizations are in line with the principles of the scriptures. As one progresses along the spiritual journey, God reciprocally empowers the senses of the seeker to perceive Him. Hallucinations are illusory perceptions characteristic of mentally deranged people, whereas realization of spiritual truths helps the practitioner, even in day-to-day affairs, to lead better and more meaningful lives. A spiritualist is in much better control of his life than many others, and certainly more so than one gripped by hallucinations. Many sane and highly intelligent people have experiences of God. Powerful yogis and other transcendentalists in all traditions of world, in past and present have spoken or written about their experiences with God. Would you call all their experiences as hallucination?”

Aditya was starting to enjoy this discussion. He was getting answers to the questions that had disturbed him. And he liked a light-hearted verbal fight. “Why should I follow the Holy Scriptures and the holy men blindly? Is that scientific?” As soon as he asked the question, the answer also struck him. Even before I replied, he exclaimed, “Let me answer that myself! Having reasonable faith in the words of the Holy Scriptures and of the sincere devotees of God is like accepting the existence of God as a sound hypothesis. Following the processes they recommend is like the experiments.”

I was impressed. I elaborated a bit more on that. “Yes, that’s correct. Initially a little bit of reasonable faith is required to start on a path suggested by the scriptures and the devotees of God. But that faith is quite a reasonable one. Along with that is also needed a systematic understanding of the science of God. This understanding, along with the sincere practice, will fortify our faith when we see that the results of following the process match with what the process states. And the fortified faith, in turn, will inspire us to follow the process even more sincerely, leading us to even deeper experiences of God. This science is presented in the Holy Scriptures. As with any other form of learning, a teacher advanced in the practice of the science is a must. From him one can take practical instructions, ask questions, and study the scriptures under his guidance. Quite naturally, such a teacher is himself a devotee of God, otherwise how can he guide his students towards a practical direct perception of God?”

Sharp that he was, Aditya asked me, “What tangible effects can be seen by following the processes? How can we know that they work? We can verify other processes by the results they produce. What about spiritual processes?”

We had entered into the area of the guesthouses, which overlook the Powai lake. As we walked along the bank of the lake, I replied, “Spiritual processes also produce tangible results. While results of other processes can be verified in a laboratory in a university campus, the results of spiritual processes can be verified in the laboratory of one’s own heart. By practicing spiritual processes, the dirty things in the heart like lust, greed, anger, etc., reduce drastically. These are very tangible transformations and can be verified by the practitioner. For example, before taking up spiritual practices, a person may have many bad habits like smoking, drinking, etc., which he may find almost impossible to give up. But as if by magic, without too much effort, these bad habits disappear from the life of the practitioner. Along with that relief, comes the lasting joy of spiritual happiness; he thoroughly enjoys the process itself. This is because spiritual activities are natural to the soul, and consequently most joyful. The practitioner experiences a positive energy by coming in touch with his real spiritual nature and eternal relationship with the Supreme Lord. And based on these tangible results, the practitioner is inspired to continue following the process, leading on to more results, all of which are tangible. In fact, what used to be abstract and theoretical yesterday, becomes practical and tangible today.”

To drive the point home, I challenged him, “If the scientific method of gaining knowledge is considered scientific, how then is following a spiritual process as described above not scientific?”

Aditya’s face became grave. He thought for a while. The sunlight was dancing on the ripples of the lake. Aditya replied, “What you just told me sounds very logical to me. Let me summarize. There are well-defined processes laid down in the scriptures which the sincere devotees of God have always been following. Moreover, there are well-known effects of following the spiritual practices. Therefore, while one is following them, one can easily cross-check whether he is experiencing the same effects or not as he continues to practice spirituality. I am convinced. In fact, I wonder why so many people oppose the idea of God and spirituality? It’s a verifiable science, and it is genuinely helpful to everyone who follows it.” As we reached towards the end of the road, Aditya’s mood was once again happy and bubbling. “Hey, you know what, your logical presentation has really enlivened me. I liked the way you mapped the scientific process to the spiritual process.” Aditya’s joy was contagious. I replied, “I could see that you were following the logic of the reasoning competently too. That’s what made our conversation so lively.”

After a thoughtful pause, Aditya said excitedly, “I have just thought of a name for the logic behind spiritual practices that we just discussed.” “So, what’s the logic called?” I played up to his mood.

“The God Logic”, he roared.

Truth about the Absolute Truth

Today’s world is characterized by freedom of expression. Gradually all kind of censoring is going away, subtly at first, blatantly later. All notions of right and wrong are becoming personalized – What I like is good. Period. No other consideration. I don’t poke my nose in others’ life, so I expect that no one should poke theirs in mine. Such freedom of expression has also made its way into notions about spirituality. Spirituality is about the Absolute Truth, which does not depend on personal preferences. However, today, even spiritual conclusions have become a matter of choice, rather than a matter of fact.

In such a relativistic environment, when some spiritual organization asserts their path to be superior to that of others, it’s seen as a clear case of blatant fundamentalism. But, one would do well by taking a step back and evaluating a spiritual path on its profoundness rather than on how it fits into ones current lifestyle. Since spirituality talks about the unchanging Absolute Truth, it’s up to the human beings to align themselves to that unchangeable Absolute Truth, rather than making the foolish and imaginary attempt at changing the unchangeable.

The understanding that spirituality talks about an Absolute Truth which is independent of all personal preferences should make a sincere seeker seek out for that Truth, rather than trying to just reason about it. What’s the guarantee that whatever conclusion his reasoning takes him to is actually the Absolute Truth? Therefore, the scriptures tell about another procedure to approach the Absolute Truth. It does not preclude logic and reasoning, but gives it a particular direction. We will talk about that procedure a little later (look for *).

The scriptures of all wisdom-traditions point us to the Absolute Truth. Not all of them describe the Absolute Truth to the same degree. And sometimes, their conclusions seem to differ. The difference can be understood to be one of two types. Either one conclusion is higher than the lower, and therefore includes the lower one; or one conclusion is actually incompatible with other. Now, if we make a hierarchy of the various conclusions of the different spiritual paths, we must end up with one topmost path which includes the conclusions of all others in that hierarchy. The conclusion of this topmost path thus will most closely represent the Absolute Truth. However, it’s possible that there might still be some other paths whose conclusions are not compatible with the highest in the hierarchy we just described. This means that this left out path neither includes all the conclusions of the others, nor are all its conclusions included in any other.

Since the Absolute Truth must include all conclusions, if we have more than one conclusion claiming to be the Absolute Truth, then only one of them is actually the Absolute Truth, and all others are either bogus, or included in the actual Absolute Truth.

(*) The procedure talked about in the scriptures is one of sincerely following the instructions of the scriptures under the guidance of one who has realized their conclusions. Since the conclusions of any spiritual path are well-known before hand, a practitioner can clearly verify whether his practice is leading him to the same realizations as those claimed by the path.

Now, one may wonder, that by following any one of the scriptures, one can only reach up to the realizations mentioned by that particular scripture. What if there are even higher realizations than that offered by the particular path he is following? This natural question clearly supports the notion that there can be different scriptures which proffer different levels of spiritual realizations to the practitioner and that one path can definitely be higher than the other.

This discussion might prompt one to hastily declare that since there is a possibility of realizations higher than those offered by even the highest conclusions known yet, why not leave aside the scriptures and try one’s own way? This is certainly an intelligent enquiry, but one which is easily answered when one hears the nature of the Absolute Truth from highly elevated souls who have realized the Absolute Truth as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna.

The Absolute Truth is defined as the source of everything, and of whom there is no source. The Absolute Truth is the supremely independent entity who does not depend on anything else for His existence; on the contrary, everything else depends on Him for its existence. The Absolute Truth is the fountainhead and the supreme controller of everything, including the power of reasoning. No other definition of the Absolute Truth can better this one, and hence, any path that leads one to the realization of such an Absolute Truth can be considered the highest of all.

The Vaishnavas realize this Absolute Truth as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna. The Vedic scriptures, especially the Bhagavad Gita and the Srimad Bhagavatam, declare Sri Krishna as the Absolute Truth (param satya). No other scripture of the world describes the Absolute Truth in such detail and clarity as do the Vedic scriptures. At the same time, the theistic conclusions of all theistic wisdom-traditions are included in the spiritual path of the Vaishnavas, known as the Bhagavat Dharma.

Even the conclusions of the impersonalist spiritual paths (who claim the Absolute Truth to be an undifferentiated entity with no attributes) are included in the Vaishnava conclusion of the Supreme Person as the Absolute Truth. This is because the Vaishnavas don’t deny the impersonal undifferentiated entity which is the goal of the impersonalist, but on the contrary describe it as an emanation from the Supreme Person, just like sunrays are an emanation of the sun. The sun is clearly superior to the sunrays, being their source.

But what about the non-theistic conclusions of some of the popular wisdom-traditions like Buddhism? The Buddhist conclusion is that ultimately there is nothing. Since the Absolute Truth is the source of everything, and surely something exists (at least the power of reasoning that “nothing exists” exists), and that nothing can come out of “nothing”, the Absolute Truth must surely not be “nothing”. Moreover, the Vaishnavas have positively realized the Absolute Truth as Sri Krishna, and they don’t have to go into a long philosophical debate to convince themselves of that. A man who can see does not have to prove to himself that the sun exists, and the blind man with his own ability can only reach up to the conclusion that there is no such thing as light. On the other hand, how can one realize that actually there is “nothing”? Similarly, some others might claim that actually there is no God. But again, on what grounds can one insist that an entity does not exist when someone else has actually realized the existence of that entity?

By exercising ones mental muscles, one can only reach up to the understanding of impersonalism. This is because material mind and senses cannot conceive of a personality as Supremely powerful as Sri Krishna. Impersonalism essentially boils down to saying that ultimately everything just exists and there is no one supreme entity independent and superior to all other existence. In other words, all entities that exist must just be manifestations and parts of the sum total of everything that exists. And this sum total of everything that exists is the Absolute Truth. Even though voidism (e.g. Buddhism) sounds a bit different in its conclusion, as far as comparison with Vaishnavism goes, for all practical purposes, it’s the same as impersonalism. This is because it doesn’t allow for the existence of a Supreme entity who is the source of everything, and of whom there is no source. In fact, voidism doesn’t allow for the existence of anything! Thus, both impersonalism and voidism are a result of not being able to reach the conclusion of a Supreme Person being the Absolute Truth. Since its not possible to reach the Vaishnav conclusion by one’s own mental speculation, what possibility is there of reaching a higher conclusion than Vaishnavism just by the power of logic and reasoning?

The Vaishnavas have realized the Absolute Truth to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna, and therefore, any other conclusion about the nature of the Absolute Truth must either include the Vaishnava conclusion, or be included by it. If not, we can safely reject it as bogus. One has no right (and means) to deny that the Vaishnavas have actually realized the Absolute Truth to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna. One can only judge one’s own conclusion against the Vaishnav one. And better still, one can give up ones mental speculation and accept the lofty Vaishnav conclusion and earn a chance to someday come face to face with the Absolute Truth, who is not an unreciprocating impersonal entity, nor is who “nothing”, but who is the supremely beautiful and loving Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna.

The God Logic

Based on observations made by our senses, existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven by logic and argument. If we stick to the principle of “seeing is believing”, or in more generalized terms, directly perceiving is believing, then we will reach to the conclusion that there exists no God, because a general person in this world cannot directly perceive the existence of God.

But if we accept that our powers of perception are limited, then we can at least come to the allowance that there might exist God, who is beyond the power of our direct perception. This is not a proof for the existence of God, but at least, by discarding the certainty about the non-existence of God, it lays the foundation for further enquiry into the topic of existence of God.

The holy scriptures of all major religions have asserted the existence of God. Along with the assertions are given the processes by following which one can perceive God in lesser or greater degrees. How can the senses which we have accepted to be powerless to perceive God suddenly gain the required power? God appreciates the sincerity of the seeker’s efforts, and to that degree empowers the senses of the seeker to perceive God. Therefore, all that is needed in perceiving God is sincere efforts along a well documented path as revealed in the holy scriptures.

The effects of following the holy scriptures, including the effect of being able to perceive God directly, depend a lot on the mood of the follower. God knows everything, including the seeker’s mood, the seeker’s motivations behind approaching God, the seeker’s past deeds, and many other factors. Based on all these, God reciprocates with the seeker. Based on the degree of reciprocation by God, the internal world (essentially the desires) of the seeker surely gets transformed, whether the seeker’s external circumstances do so or not. And perception of God no longer remains mere theory.

So, have we proved the existence of God? No. We have just stated what the holy scriptures state and what sincere devotees of God have been telling us all along. These statements cannot be proven unless one follows the process. But they can be proven to oneself, by direct perception, if one follows the process. Now, the only question is: are the devotees of God bluffing us? If we think so, then obviously we will continue to not accept the existence of God. And if we do believe the devotees of God, we will accept that God exists and can be perceived by following devotional practices and processes.

Well, there you go! The non-believers will jump on to this explanation saying that it relies on faith and not on hard evidence. That it depends on abstract things like perception, and that too on others’ perceptions. What is the proof that that perception is not a hallucination? But hallucinations are a characteristic of mentally deranged men, and devotees of God hardly show any symptoms of mental derangement. So, the question that remains, in its more refined form, is: should one believe the verifiably sane (and in a lot of cases verifiably very intelligent) devotees of God when they say that God can be perceived by following a certain process? For most neutral people, the reasonable answer is Yes.

Yes, initially a little bit of reasonable faith is required to start off on a path suggested by the scriptures and the devotees of God. But that faith is quite a reasonable one. Along with that is also needed a systematic understanding of the science of God. This understanding, along with the sincere practice, will fortify our faith when we see that the results of following the process match with what the science states. And the fortified faith, in turn, will inspire us to follow the process even more sincerely. This science is presented in the holy scriptures. As with any other form of learning, a teacher advanced in the practice of the science is a must; from whom one can take practical instructions, to whom one can ask deep questions, and under whose guidance one can study the scriptures. Quite naturally, such a teacher is himself a devotee of God, otherwise how can he guide his students towards a practical direct perception of God?

So, have we proved the existence of God? No. And we have already accepted at the very outset that God cannot be perceived with the limitedly powerful senses. But we have reasonably argued that sincere practitioners of the processes required to perceive God (which are documented in the holy scriptures) have stated that God can be perceived by following those processes. We have also stated that a systematic study of the science of God is required to help us sincerely follow the process and also to cross-check the theory of the science with its practical application.

Having reasonable faith does not fall out of the limits of the scientific method. The hypotheses of the scientific method are nothing but leaps of reasonable faith. These hypotheses act as guiding lights for the subsequent experiments. The results of those experiments give the hypotheses various degrees of truth. If the results of the experiment match with the predictions of the hypotheses, the hypotheses are declared as truths. Otherwise, the hypotheses are discarded.

Similarly, having reasonable faith in the words of the holy scriptures and of the sincere devotees of God is like accepting the existence of God as a hypothesis. Following the processes they recommend is like the experiments. The science of God is like the guiding principles based on which the hypothesis can be cross-checked with the practical experiences. If the scientific method of gaining knowledge is considered scientific, how then is following a spiritual process as described above not scientific?

The non-believers can choose not to take up any spiritual path. That is their choice. However, they cannot prove that God does not exist. There are a lot of things outside a general man’s power of perception and one cannot scientifically make conclusive statements about such things staying within those limiting boundaries of perceptionn. The non-believers generally tend to reject the instructions of the scriptures and the devotees of God, but put forward their own arguments about why God must not exist. In other words, they say that God does not exist because if he had existed he would have acted in such and such a way. And so on. But in making such statements, the non-believers propose their own idea of God. But God does not necessarily have to be like what people who deny God’s existence say. If on the other hand, one studies the science of God under proper guidance, one will get answers to a lot questions whose lack of satisfactory answers turn many people into non-believers. One cannot choose to deny God’s existence and at the same time propose how God should behave. And one who accepts God’s existence will naturally learn the science of God from the holy scriptures under the guidance of sincere devotees of God who have been applying the science in their lives for a lot of years.

The devotees of God encourage the general mass of people to take on devotional spiritual paths. This is out of their compassion. The devotees have experienced the grace of God and are eager to share it with others. They do not any vested interests in propagating the science of God. But what is the motive behind the non-believers’ vehement opposition to God-consciousness? Many non-believers say that God and science don’t go together. That God is fiction. But, we have already explained that in that sense, all hypotheses of the scientific method are fiction. They are not proved unless experiments are conducted to prove them. Some other non-believers point out that religion has been the cause of great violence all throughout history, and therefore one must just relegate God to being a non-entity. In other words, if God existed, He would not allow such violence in the name of religion. Therefore, God does not exist. Again, such an understanding reveals the lack of awareness about science of God. In fact, most of the arguments against the existence of God stem from a lack of even basic understanding of the science of God. The non-believers may retort with saying that they think the science of God is just a figment of someone’s imagination. But, we have already explained a few times that this science can be compared to an element in the scientific method, and only experimentation (actually following the spiritual devotional process) can prove it one way or the other.

Apart from these reasons, some non-believers just hate God. Most of their arguments are just to cover up this hatred. They don’t care whether God exists or not. They just hate Him. Why? Maybe life has not gone according to their plan and they see this as an evil act of God. There can be many other reasons. But all of this again point to a lack knowledge about the science of God. If God exists, why does He let me suffer? Unless one studies the science of God, how can one know the answer to this question?

So, have we proved the existence of God? Yes and No. We have definitely asserted that non-believers cannot make any conclusive statements about the non-existence of God. As for those who have at least a little faith that God exists, they can use the scientific method to verify their faith by following the devotional spiritual processes under the guidance of sincere and experienced devotees of God. Simultaneously, they can learn the science of God under the proper guidance so that they can verify the results of their practices against what the science states. If the practitioner can verify this, then he would have proved the existence of God to himself. For those who do not care to conduct the experiments, the existence of God still remains a mystery. They can not prove that God does not exist, and without following the devotional spiritual processes, they cannot prove that God exists. They are nowhere.

This, then, is the God Logic.

The Unfortunate Non-Changers!

Dear All,

Suppose I am following a certain way of life. And someone comes and says that my way of life is wrong, or that it could be improved. Now, what should I do? What should be my reaction to this? Should I say a bit agitatedly "Well, I live life this way, you may live life some other way. Why do you want to impose upon me your way?" Or should my reaction be "OK. Let me see what you have to say, and then I will think about it and compare it with my way of life and see if it makes sense to me.. Thanks."

What a stark difference in the two approaches. The first betrays my lack of motivation to improve my life. It also betrays that I dont really know why I am living a certain way of life. What is the goal of my life and so on.. If I were very clear about why I am following a certain way of life, and what I want to achieve by doing so, then when presented with an alternative, I will certainly have something to compare it with. I certainly wont say that you do your thing and I'll do mine. Instead, I will try to understand the goal of the alternative way of life. Then I'll compare it with my current goal of life and then come to a conclusion whether the alternative path is better or not.

Makes sense?

I get flabbergasted when people just say "well, there are different ways to live life.... " and some such philosophical sounding but vague concepts.. Agreed that there are different ways of living life, but isnt one way better than the other? Isnt leading a virtuous life better than leading a criminal life? Well, this is a gross example because it compares two extremes, but this is just to bring forth the point that one way of life can definitely be better than another!

And shouldnt one be eager to lead a better way of life?

Another quite illogical argument I have to face when speaking to people who dont really want to make any change in their lifestyle (because it will disrupt their daily routine of getting up late, rushing to a newspaper, drinking a couple of cups of tea and so on...), is that "Abhijit, you say your philosophy is better than the others! How can you say that? How can you be so close-minded?"

I find this response so absurd and illogical that I cant possible refute it with logic :-) Because ya, I might say that this is the best way to live life, but as long as I am justifying every statement I make with sound logic, how can anyone say that it is "close-minded"? Its quite a no-win situation when talking to people who cant talk logically.

The conclusion I have come to with such people is that they do not want to change their lifestyle even if it is recommended by the great saints. They say it is impractical though there are thousands of live examples in front of their eyes. And the reason is that these people are attached to their sense enjoyment so much that they cant give it up even if there is a promise of wonderful things. In fact, they say that they are already following some way of life, but if one looks a little closely, one can see that they are not following even that path seriously!

What an unfortunate situation? Who can help these miserable people if they do not want to be helped? Who can wake up a person feigning that he is asleep?

May God be merciful upon such unfortunate souls.

Abhijit.

Sincerely In Search Of Truth!

Dear All,

I have a very intense desire to know the Truth. I am ready to take it even if it is painful to digest. I wont say that I am not hurt by pain, but I will surely say that I would welcome that pain if that’s what is required to know the truth. All my childhood life, I had been subconsciously searching out for the truth and after that in my youthhood, I have been very consciously searching out for the Truth. I just have to know the Truth! Perhaps such a quest is termed as philosophical, but I don’t really care what it is termed as by others. All I know is “I want to know the Truth”.

With this background, perhaps my readers can now appreciate why I painstakingly right logical arguments in a lot of articles. However, I would like to add that understanding God is by definition of God, beyond logic. This statement suddenly seems to deflate all the high sounding things I have written in the first para.. but if you think deep enough, it just gets us back to the question “am I ready to accept the truth even though it doesn’t make sense to me at this moment?” Note that we are talking about truth, that which exists without any other support. Truth is truth whether one likes it or not.

However, it also does not mean that one cannot understand anything about God. Saying that it is beyond logic does not mean that there are no other means. The other means we will come to later once there is an honest acceptance of the limitations of logic to understand or express something beyond its domain. Any elementary logician will accept that. One cannot prove properties on fractions in a logical system that defines only integers and transformations on them. Similarly, one cannot prove properties of the inconceivable potencies of God with a logical system that only defines conceivable things and their conceivable transformations. Unless one accepts the limitations of contemporary scientific logic, how can one wholeheartedly focus on a superior logic that explains God quite easily. Why? Because that logic is based on the axiom that God exists and has inconceivable qualities!

No logician can logically argue against an axiomatic system for the simple reason that all practical logical systems are axiomatic. The number theory (who has not heard about it?) is based on the undefined axiom of the point. So, does that mean arithmetic is not a valid truth? In fact, throughout the (quite short) history of modern science, the observations have come first, the hypothesis next, and then the logical systems that were built around the observations so as to mathematically model the perceivable observations. And remember, these logical systems are all based on unverifiable or undefined assumptions which are called axioms!

Modern science accepts (should accept) a theory (or a logical system) only when that theory explains all observable events in that particular domain. Even if the theory is based on axioms (which it always is), as long as it can explain all observations in the particular domain, that theory has some merit. However, as soon as the theory falls short in explaining an event in that domain, the theory is no longer valid and has to be either totally rejected or modified to incorporate the new observation while still able to retain the other observations in its provables. A well known example of how well established logical and mathematical systems can prove ineffective in certain circumstances is how the laws of linear geometry don’t apply in curved spaces. For example, in curved spaces, parallel lines can meet!

But truth, by definition, is unchangeable.

What this means is that a theory constructed by a human being does not represent the truth. It represents a mathmatization (or philosophization) of the observations so far in a limited domain of human perception. And what to speak of the realm of the imperceptible? No scientist or philosopher can claim that his theory or philosophy is the last word in realizing the truth. Any theory or philosophy has to always by definition lag the truth!

This is what I want to establish by this article. That a theory or a system of logic coming out of the human brain can never claim that it is perfect. In fact such a theory will kill the modern understanding of scientific research! How will scientists earn a living if the perfect scientific theory is discovered? Perhaps this is one of the concerns of modern scientists in not accepting the perfect science of God as it is given by the spiritual masters (scientists) of the ancient times. The truth never changes and thus the science given by them is equally valid even today and will always be valid in the future eternally.

So then, is scientific research or philosophical research a waste of time? Yes and No. Yes, if one is concocting a hypothesis based on observations made by undoubtedly limited and imperfect senses, and then constructing a scientific theory or philosophy around it just to satisfy ones intellectual hankering and/or perhaps to get some fame. No, if the scientific research and philosophical understanding is directed towards trying to better understand the already well known and universally accepted Absolute Truth – The Supreme Personality of Godhead!

Having said this, I want to assert that the intent of this particular article is not to prove that God exists or to get into an argument with those who believe otherwise. As I have already mentioned clearly earlier in this article, any theory, whether proposing the existence of God or proposing His non-existence, coming from the limited human intellect, is bound to be imperfect. However, the truth remains irrespective of whether we have a theory that supports it or not. And the human endeavor should be to find out what it is!

Once reaching this mutual understanding that there in no evidence that any theory coming from human intellect can possibly explain all that exists, all the parties involved will be forced to think of alternative ways to find out the truth. This I am saying assuming that all parties are really interested in the truth and not in personal fame and/or in gratifying their own intellectual hankerings.

So, what is the way to get perfect knowledge? The Bhagavad Gita comes to our rescue! Just ask someone who knows it, a bona fide spiritual master, because he has seen the truth! He has seen it because he followed the instructions of his own spiritual master. And so on.. And the original spiritual master is? Yes, you guessed it – God! In the absence of any evidence contrary to this, one has no choice but to accept this method. It saves time too! For a person eager to know the Truth, this is exactly the method. If one carefully analyses this system of ways and means and the ultimate goal (achieving love of God), and carefully studies under the guidance of the bona fide spiritual master, then that person will no doubt realize that this system is more robust than any that has ever been built by modern science. He will realize that this is as scientific (or even more so) than the so called scientific theories of modern science.

But, that initial step forward is required. One has to start following the process to appreciate the system and the philosophy. Any sincere seeker of the truth will take this step, but not those who are not really looking for the truth.

Let me conclude with this : I am not against science. But I am also very much eager to know the truth. And I rather take it from a source that has never got amended (Vedic literature) as instructed by a pure saintly person than from a source that has always proven to be inadequate (modern science with its innumerable amendments) practiced by people full of desires for personal fame and glory and who would not hesitate to change their experimental observations just to prove a theory that they have proposed.

Thank you,
Abhijit.