Reality: Static & Dynamic

My contribution to this post will be minimal because I plan to share original content from another source. If you’re interested, you can look into the Complete Works of Ram Chandra, Volume One. Else, please continue reading below for excerpts I’ve pulled from a chapter titled, “Reality – Its Static and Dynamic Aspects” which deals with how God is defined.

---

There has been a great deal of controversy over the question of the existence of God, the Ultimate Reality. The real problem of my mind, is not that of proving or disproving the existence of an Eternal Absolute but that of defining it in an adequate and satisfactory way. The factor of blind and enthusiastic faith, created and strengthened by individual miseries and cravings in different cultural contexts, has added more and more confusions. Consequently, the man of reason and thought rightly feels disgusted at the very mention of the word “God.”

There are various conceptions of the Ultimate Reality. People look upon Him differently according to their capacity and understanding… But philosophic view includes the idea of Nirguna Brahman (Indeterminate Absolute) which is above all multiplicity and distinction. This Nirguna Brahman is regarded to be the ultimate cause and substratum of existence, the superactive center of the entire manifestation. It is also known as Para Brahman.

Next comes the idea of God as Supreme Existence. We see the universe with all its diversities and differentiations and we are led to believe in its creator and controller. We call him Ishwara, or Saguna Brahman (Determinate Absolute). We think of him as an Eternal Existence which is omipotent and omniscient, posessing all the finest attributes. He is the efficient cause of the world and also its preserver and destroyer.

It is only when viewed from the lower standpoint that God becomes an object of worship, which is the final approach of almost all the religions. This Saguna Brahman is also known as Apara Brahman. Much is said in religious books about the above-mentioned two conceptions. Some think that the concept of indeterminate or attributeless God is better than that of determinate God. Others hold just the opposite view. In fact, both of them are erring… There are no doubt the two ways, but the goal is one… Both the conceptions, as generally understood, are greatly misleading. Truly God is neither Nirguna nor Saguna, but is beyond both… It is we who conceive Him to be Nirguna; and it is we who make him Saguna. What we must do to avoid these quarrels is that we must fix our view on the original element (Adi Tattva) – be it Nirguna or Saguna. Whatever it is we must love it.

Religion is only a preliminary stage for preparing a man for his march on the path for freedom. The end of religion is the beginning of spirituality; the end of spirituality is the beginning of Reality; and the end of Reality is the real Bliss. When that too is gone, we have reached the destination. This is the highest mark which is almost inexpressible in words.

Thus God is not to be found within the folds of a particular religion or sect. He is neither to be confined within certain forms or rituals nor is He to be traced out within the scriptures. Him we have to seek in the innermost core of our heart.

---

After this post, I’ll add another to pick up where this left off. The next will begin by starting at the place of understanding held by an Atheist and will employ some basic mathematical concepts to illustrate.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

Advertisement

Jnanam

Two posts ago, I began this three-part episode. In the last post, I discussed as best I’m able how my experience with bhakti cemented my relationship with Ganesha and I mentioned, just briefly, how that bhakti has led me to progressively higher experience within jnana yoga. In this final post my goal is to explain some knowledge about Ganesha (some very superficial jnana, at best) and perhaps to step a little deeper if the post leads me there.

Although Ganesha’s form, having a human-like body and an elephant head, is mismatched, His immense form comes loaded full of an immensity of symbolism and wisdom pointing to higher Truth. In fact, the most notable trait He possesses, His head/body combo, point to an undeniable truth. The human body is attached to a non-human head. One meaning behind this is to show us that, while a body will not remain alive without the brain within the head telling all parts what to do, Divinity is an automatic and necessary part of human existence.

From there, you can just about pick something -anything- about Ganesha’s form and He will use it to enlighten you. In some images He has more than one face or head. His large ears are said to not only serve as sifters, helping to sort Truth from untruth (Asato ma sat gamaya…), but also are efficient and even necessary to hear the multitude of prayers sent to Him -a natural observation considering He’s only deity within Hinduism worshipped/approached by (literally) all before any task or any other form of worship. Ganesha’s broken tusk has meaning. The varied directions and curvatures of His trunk also possesses esoteric knowledge. The position of his legs, whether seated or standing or dancing, is also meant to be a sign to us. One obvious place where knowledge has been encoded: His hands/arms. Their number, position, mudra, and what they may hold are all indicative. His color is meant to teach us. Whether he has a consort on His lap, or two, or none, is meant to point to Truth, too. His vahana is highly symbolic. The size of his belly also tells us something. Everything about everything about everything, pertaining to all forms of Ganesha (Vedic wisdom supplies us with 32, officially), points to higher Truth. As such, the progression toward Truth (Brahman) is quite literally inescapable while contemplating, meditating on, or worshipping Ganesha.

Oddly enough, even in unorthodox representations of Ganesha, very nearly the full Truth can be found. To be clear, as mentioned above, there are 32 officially recognized forms of Ganesha. However, one other form that I’ll mention now is known as Sri Shubh Dhrishti Ganapati. There are a number of stories accounting for how this form came to be, but the most accepted or known is that He appeared in this form to a man who then made that form known to us all. Some say that this form of Ganesha is just a money-making scheme, and I suppose that’s quite possible, but I also think that’s irrelevent because any form of any god could be used for the same, and is, without automatically negating that form’s inherent value or purpose. He apparently manifested to the aforementioned man in a dream as a way of coming into our present Kali Yuga, and is meant to be an all-encompassing representation of The All, and as such is also known as Sarva Mahashakti. This form of Ganesha, like all other forms of Ganesha, is known as the physical form of the pranava (Om, Aum,…), and encompasses/combines all other major deities. One can easily see, with even a glance at the form: Shiva’s trident, Vishnu’s conch, and Durga’s lion -among a number of other notable attributes, signifying the culmination of all attributes. Worshipping and meditating on any of Ganesha’s holy forms will lead to liberation because the worshipper or meditator is, among other things, simultaneously worshipping or meditating on all other gods within the pantheon, which themselves point to The Absolute, as well as the Primordial Sound, which is itself the Foundation of all phenomenal existence (as our modern physics is proving). In this way, both Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are sought and experienced, and the wheel of samsara transcended.

Sri Shubh Dhrishti Ganapati

In my beginning with Ganesha, in part because of His fantastic form, I found devotion to Him to come quite easily. The entire last post somewhat detailed my journey with bhakti, which was then the primary and elementary form of my religion. Bhakti, being my starting place, is what led me to familiarity with karma yoga and then to an ever-deepening experience of jnana yoga. For me, this progressed naturally: Developing bhakti enables the potential for me to see That (Brahman, Atman, Ganesha, Krishna, Vishnu, God, myself…whatever label I attach to that which I’m devoted) in each conscious entity I encounter. Also, the realization and experience of It’s omnipresence leads naturally to modified, corrected, and elevated behavior, which includes behaviors of the mind/intelligence (read: practicing karma yoga). No joke: Try seriously believing that everything you encounter is pervaded by that One to which you’re devoted and still behave as you did before that realization. I’ll be bold and say that if you’re able to behave as you always have, you’re not only not really seeing that to which you’re devoted in others, but also you’ve yet to even taste bhakti -even if the taste is otherwise only fleeting.

With “Step 1” and “Step 2” partially under my belt (at least theoretically), the stage is set for “Step 3” : Jnana Yoga. When you take the fire provided by yoga of devotion (bhakti) and add to it the wood of karma yoga, you find yourself surrounded by the other-worldly glow of Jnana. Many people stop understanding what jnana is after scratching its surface. This is why some are fine believing that jnana (“knowledge” with a miniscule k) leads to bhakti/karma. That’s an incomplete understanding of what jnana is, and in that light it’s easy to conclude that “learning what’s right” (jnana) allows one to better perceive The One, and then enables true and full devotion, resulting in liberation at the feet of the Lord.

Jnana is more than mere “knowing.” It’s knowing with a magiscule K. When one’s devotion (bhakti yoga) and devotional actions (karma yoga) are effectively used to still more and more samskaras, the wisdom inherent in one’s atman appears increasingly clear to the mind. With this settling of samskaras the mind is able to perfectly reflect back to the atman the Image of Itself. This is an experience of jnana -Truth(one’s soul) knowing/seeing Truth(that soul’s Source) clearly. The experience is of a ridiculously indescribable, transcendent, and blissful Consciousness which is the truest essential nature of the atman/paramatman/Brahman. This is Sat-Chid-Anand and this is Brahman.

Om shanti

Bhakt’

In the last post I scratched the surface on a three-part series I’m planning to write about my understanding of the nature of the Hindu conception of God, and also where I personally have encountered the highest concentration of This in my own life. Before continuing in this post, you’ll want to have read the one before this. Inform yourself here. As mentioned in the post before this, Ganesha deva holds a particular place in my swadharma. In this post I’d like to attempt to explain how trying my hand at devotion (Ganesha = my ishtadevata) brought me to a higher knowledge regarding Truth. Right now, I’m not terribly confident that my thought processes or use of words will serve as I hope, but if you care to continue reading, you’ll have my best effort.

Bhakti, or devotion, was the first component at play in my being transfixed on the Ideal that is Ganesha. I came to know of Him almost the very instant I came to know anything at all about Hinduism. Perhaps love/devotion at first sight? LOL No, but really -probably the first two things I knew regarding Ganesha is that He’s the Remover of Obstacles, and that He’s the son of Shiva, the God of Destruction (among other things and whose name is synonymous with auspiciousness and consciousness. I’ve been meaning to make a post just about Shiva.). With attributes like that instantly my heart was hooked.

As I mentioned in the last post, I find the highest quantity and concentration of divine attributes to be applicable to Ganesha. If Brahman is essentially attributeless, and It is (Neti, Neti, remember?), then it reasons that devotion to anything with attributes best serves as a launch pad for experiencing/merging with something virtually impossible to conceptualize. You have to essentially master the phenomenal world before transcending it and realizing the Foundation of all that is phenomenal. Otherwise you’re trying to go from zero to sixty without really even knowing how to operate the vehicle. Some vehicles come with power windows, but no power seats. Some don’t have power windows, but have power seats, and so on. I want a vehicle with as many bells and whistles as I can find so that operating my vehicle happens as optimally as possible, making that zero-to-sixty acceleration not only more likely, but smoother in the process. And so, as it happens, I found Ganesha.

In my opinion, of all the prominent gods within the Hindu pantheon, Ganesha is the most striking. For me personally, gods like Brahma, Vishnu, Kartikeya/Murugan, Shiva, and just about all forms of Shakti/The Mother are too anthropomorphic. I don’t think this lessens their value in any way, but it makes them less appealing to me. Even one such as Hanuman, who has a human-like form of a monkey, is too human-like to represent something as indescribable as Brahman in my experience. In contrast, Ganesha refuses to fit most moulds. Possessing the head of an elephant, a typically obese thorax and abdomen, and rarely seen with fewer than four arms … the whole mess of which is perched upon a miniscule maushika (mouse) vahana. His form, while full of meaning that I’ll pick apart later, doesn’t fit in. Maybe this pulls more at my own heart strings because of growing up as I did: short, scrawny, unathletic, non-farmer gay kid in the middle of Indiana’s corn fields. Like Ganesha’s misfit head and whacked beginning, I didn’t fit many moulds hoped for me either. On some level, I feel affinity for His image and all it’s various traits may represent.

I think, too, much of what Ganesha is said to symbolize/represent/govern are things I hold dear. This list is actually super big, and I’ll get to that in the next post. I suppose it’s selfish, but finding not only what I hold dear, but much else otherwise kind of makes Ganesha the ultimate in one-stop spiritual shopping for me.

Shortly after learning of Ganesha I purchased my very first murti. At that time, I was already more inclined toward the Shiva side of things, but a murti of Ganesha is what I encountered first and it was almost like I was imprinted instantly. I’ve included a photo of it above. My first “mandir” was nothing other than the top of a cheap dresser and consisted of hardly more than a cloth covering the dresser’s top, a candle, and the Ganesha above. I’m tempted to say that it was during this time that my bhakti was newest and strongest. I certainly didn’t yet possess much spiritual knowledge, but I knew I loved God and I knew that for me, Ganesha was my preferred image of God. At this time, too, I was familiarizing myself with Yogananda and his autobiography, and with the Bhagavad Gita. Because of the lack of knowledge, including knowledge of the concept of Karma Yoga, bhakti was literally my entire religion. I had known devotion before with earlier religious experiences, but during this time in my life it was quite literally just myself and what I understood to be my god -the connection was palpable and real and it’s from this time of my life that I retain spiritual memories that not only are kept tucked away for my remembrance only, but sealed my relationship with Brahman as Ganesha.

Since those days, I’m become more familiar with the other faces of Brahman. I don’t suppose I could ever fully exclude any one of Hinduism’s god. However, I’ve also become increasingly close to the Ideal of Ganesha and have learned so much about Him -and have learned and experienced so much as a result of learning about Him. This brings me to the next post which I intend to deal with the meaning encapsulated in Ganesha’s form as well as jnana yoga. For now, let it be clear that Ganesha is the source of my devotion and its object, and this has brought me to new landscapes of internal wisdom.

Om Shanti

Ganesham Bhajema

Although not everything about my religious/spiritual journey in this life has been pleasant, I’m immensely grateful for every step. After being forced to part ways with Christianity, and wandering for a brief year or two, I came to discover what might be modernly recognized as the principal deities of Hinduism, namely Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. It was in learning about the Trimurti that I learned about other manifestations of the divine such as Vayu, Indra, Surya, Agni, Lakshmi, Hanuman, Ganesha, Saraswati, and many others. Initially there seemed to be a profound yet finite hierarchy within this pantheon; some gods being the husbands/wives/fathers/mothers/sons/daughters of others. For a time, most of my learning centered around acquainting myself with these relationships and their histories.

As the depth of my knowledge increased, I gained the realization that these gods were variously known to be faces of the One Supreme Reality, as well as actually worshipped by their respective devotees as That One. I found this to be an interesting facet of Sanatana Dharma that is missing from religions of the West. I also found this to be one of the single most important things a dharmi could come to know. In fact, this is literally foundational to the faith: Ekam sat vipraha bahudh’ vadanti, Truth is one, though the wise recognize it variously. It’s because of this foundation of the Hindu belief system that I’ve always wondered why a Hindu is able to genuinely believe that any such “face” the One might happen to wear, is actually the “complete” manifestation of Brahman.

Having said that, I’ll say two other things.

1. I feel that each of the Hindu gods (it’s been said that there are over 330 million) does absolutely represent Brahman, although incompletely -if that even makes any sense. Truly, only Brahman is That, and That is impossible to fully describe from the perspective of human language and conception – which might account for why there are a bajillion deities recognized within Hindu panentheism, and which is also a testament to the vastness of Hindu religion and the fruit of its ancient and on-going efforts to paint an ever clearer picture of what Reality is. In no other religion known to humans on Earth is the picture of God provided in such an encompassing way. No joke. But each god, while worshipable as a representation of The All, at best can only point to some of That All.
2. I’ve spent more than one-third of my current life learning about and actively living Hindu Dharma. A lot of this time, and certainly especially in my earlier Hindu years, has been spent (as I already mentioned) continually educating myself. Some of this self education has been very basic: “This is such-and-such god, and this is what he/she governs/represents.” It didn’t take long before I noticed overlapping from one god to the next. A basic example is that of goddesses Kali and Durga. Both are distinct in their own ways, yet both are known as fierce, protecting Mothers and are understood to be magnificent but volatile faces for the Shakti that animates everything. I think it’s because of encountering this that I’m not likely to ever say that one god is actually supreme over the rest. Not in all cases, but in enough, an attribute of one god is equally as applicable to another. With that in mind, why would it be logical to say that Kali is supreme, when Durga has any number of things in common with Her? And what of the attributes typically ascribed to Durga that don’t apply to Mother Kali? Do those render Durga superior to Kali? This can be carried over and applied to a huge number of Hindu deities.

Sri Ganesh is (kind of) an exception. Or at least to my current personal sensibilities, He’s the closest thing to an exception that I’ve found. I say He’s kind of an exception, because I believe you are either an exception or you’re not, and technically speaking He’s not. Why then, even bring Him up? If for no other reason, because the greatest amount of the aforementioned deity-deity overlapping occurs with Him, AKA from my perspective it seems as though the greatest number of Brahman’s attributes apply to Ganesha. I don’t think this alone makes Him an exception, but it does make Him stand out to me.

Dear Reader, allow me to provide a slight disclaimer at this point: I’m not professing to be any sort of expert. I’m also not in any way intending to invalidate anyone else’s beliefs or ishtadevata or marg or …anything. What I’m saying in this post, and in the next few to come, applies strictly to my experience. If it happens to also apply to your own, by all means let me know, and we’ll relate our commonality. If your experience has been different, and seemingly conflicting to what I’ve posted here and am about to post, you are also welcome to let me know this, provided you respect our difference as it’s been expressed in my writing. I’ll ask just one favor of you before you express your differing viewpoint. Read at least the final paragraph of this.

Om Shanti