ईश के आकार का तुममें,
नमन हृदय से करता हूँ ।
नमस्कार ये सोच बनाया,
वंदन वेदों का करता हूँ ।
नमस्ते या नमस्कार हमारी संस्कृति में ऋग्वेद से ही आता है। बिना भौतिक स्पर्श के किसी को
अभिवादन एक तरह की खोज ही है। ये इस बात को इंगित करता है कि किसी को संक्रमण न हो इस बात को उस काल के ऋषि मुनि समझते थे।
वातावरण शुद्ध रखने के लिए हवन इत्यादि भी इसी समझ का रूप है।
सुनील जी गर्ग
I tried to understand the human behaviour with the help of Logic. I failed. I tried logic on understanding why there is life on earth; I got stuck with various theories. I applied logic on understanding of GOD; I could not even start theorizing properly. I am a computer guy, so I know that there are logic gates. Computers work on logic. Had logic not been there technology would not have been there. So what is the contradiction? Should logic be applied everywhere? Is there a limit to apply logic? Every person will nod and will definitely say ‘Yes’. Is everything beyond logic is the realm of GOD? Maybe Yes, Maybe No. Something unknown today, may be difficult to prove by logic today, but it may be possible to prove by logic in future.
So friends! There are definitely two things; realm of UNKNOWN and realm of GOD. One fine day, we may be able to enter the realm of Unknown, but we will never be able to enter the realm of. Something supernatural, beyond existence, beyond thoughts, beyond creation or destruction will always be there. So is that what we call the limit of logic? We will always be able to think, that our thoughts have a limit. As long as we are aware of our limits or rather the limits of applying logic, we will be aware of GOD. But we need to keep expanding our limits not only in the search of unknown, but also in the search of GOD. So here comes the great logic of logic that GOD exists. We keep expanding infinitely and at the end of infinity the thing which exists is called GOD. Let us give a new expansion to the acronym GOD as Growing Out to Destination. This is to explain that we are eternally growing, eternally increasing outwards and will eternally be involved in the process of growing to reach the destination, which is beyond unknown, beyond logic and beyond the logic of logic.
Don’t we know that even the logic makers from science say that the universe is expanding and will continue to expand forever?
Sorry! I made an uncalled attempt to apply logic to something where logic should never be applied. I couldn’t help it. After all, minds still operate in the framework of logic. Hey! did I made a breakthrough discovery here?
I was conducting one of my aromatherapy classes. One of my friends, who is also a spiritually minded person, came at the end of the class to pick her daughter up, who had joined my class. Since the class also discussed the contribution of Indians to the world knowledge pool in every sphere of life, we had created a theme for the post-class discussions. He mentioned that the Indian philosophy talks about coming inside, which means understanding yourself, while the western philosophy talks about going out or understanding others around you. This gave me enough food for thought. I have an opinion that a true fusion of both the philosophies is required. One can not analyze and learn about himself unless he understands his environment well. Analysis is always about comparisons. Either you compare to your past deeds, or the deeds of the others around you. Right or wrong is a relative judgment.
Actually, the debate started with the point that we Indians do less documentation of our findings, as compared to western countries. For this reason we either loose credit for many things or we end up making claims that we already knew many things in the past which the western people are now trying to teach us back. Many times we feel that things are in our brains, well preserved and can be transferred to the right disciple. In search of the right disciple, a good teacher may sometimes end up waiting for the entire life. Here, documentation comes to the rescue.
So truly speaking, there is no need to talk about clashing philosophies. It is just a matter of picking the right things from every philosophy rather than trying to prove which one is better.
When I attended sessions from many holistic healers, the concept of five element theories was often over stressed. I also heard from them various related theories and the so called deep analysis of why those five elements form the basis of the constitution of this universe. The most commonly explained five elements are Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Space. The fifth one is also equated to either sky or to some void space called aether. Some theories even define the sixth element as the “consciousness” or “Chetna”. Chinese five element theory, Wu Xing, that is concerned with the processes and changes identifies Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal and Water as five elements. Greeks define basic four elements Earth, Water, Fire and Air for constitution of things on earth and the fifth one aether for all heavenly bodies. Leading from Buddhists impression of standard five called ‘Godai’, Japanese also added the sixth one as ‘nether’ representing darkness or death.
I was told by my chemistry teacher that these five elements are only the notional elements. The real elements are listed in the periodic table given by Mendeleev and then later updated till date to show 118 elements. Today, modern science recognizes many sub-atomic particles up till the recently discovered one the Higgs-boson or the GOD particle. Media advertised this discovery in a way, as if the core constituent of universe has been found. After a deeper look at the situation prevailing now, may it be the general theory of relativity, quantum theory or string theory, one can easily understand that the search for core constituents of anything or everything in this universe is far from over. Let me now try to categorize things based on the perceptions I have formed after reading a lot about modern thought processes on this issue.
As the first constituent I will put “Matter and Energy”. This is because, both are inter-convertible. As the second constituent place of this list I shall give to “Space” that was called aether in some older theories. Something, where all other constituents are suspended. It could be space between neutrons or protons or space between stars. The third place I shall give to “Time”. I believe that modern theories have given sufficient proof that time is also something that is one of the core thing connecting this universe. The fourth one I intend to give to “Dark matter and Dark Energy”. This is something we are still struggling to find, but we are sure that these are there. This is simply because we know that the mass of the universe is far higher than the mass of the matter we know. And finally the fifth place in this neo elements list, I shall give to Life or Consciousness. I consider Life or Consciousness as an entity without which this universe cannot be treated as complete. Life certainly is something that is elementally different from other elements I discussed above. Finally the new five elements list looks like Matter & Energy, Space, Time, Dark Matter & Dark Energy and Life.
This list could have been made a seven or eight point list, but to philosophically relate it to the traditional magic number five, this has been summed up as a “Neo Five Element Theory”. Please do not discard this right away. Google again, think again, debate with yourself and come-up with your own list. One can even attempt to build better holistic healing principles based on this neo-five element theory.
He was an old office colleague of mine. He used to meet me very often even after I had left that company and started my own. His purpose was just to keep discussing with me some social topics, some philosophical topics or even some topics that relate to spirituality. I always enjoyed discussing with him, because at the end of the debate he used to get convinced with my logic and this always gave me pleasure. This might be my own version that he always gets convinced with my logic, but he always maintained a kind of respect he used to give to me when I was his direct Boss.
Today, to my little surprise, he started arguing about the existence of GOD in a relatively louder tone. He said that even if GOD is there, he is biased. He wanted to prove that GOD is partial. He has always seen in his life that people doing wrong things every day enjoy lots of wealth and social status and the people who do good deeds remain unrewarded. He gave examples of some of his school and college mates and he showed a lot of envy and jealousy towards their success. I felt that what he has been saying has also occurred to me many times. I read a lot of religious books, moral teaching books, visit a lot of relevant internet sites and sometimes I also feel that all the explanations given appear to be junk. They all start by saying that you need to trust GOD to find him inside yourself. All of this seems to be one-sided. There seems to be no second theory about GOD. It seems to be a creation of our own minds. When our thought process reaches a certain limit, we start avoiding further arguments with ourselves and we say “Okay! We trust that there is surely some super-power who is running this universe and we name it as GOD”. We visit people who explain the same theory again and again to us in different flavours and we claim that we are getting some sense of satisfaction or peace after visiting these so called Gurus. These gurus ask us to abandon logic for understanding GOD. Sometimes we temporarily leave logic out of respect for those gurus; sometimes we leave logic, because others around us have also left it. But! Our journey is rarely over. We keep struggling within ourselves.
I came up with my logic, in front of my friend. I tried to explain to him in easier words. “My dear friend! There is no need to attribute your failures or success of others to an unknown thing called GOD. Some people do it, because they believe that it will make life easier for them. You may not do it. You do not need to believe in a biased GOD. It is simply destiny, and destiny needs to be biased, that is why we call it destiny. Remember, destiny is ‘Destination’ reached ‘un-knowingly’”. Pick ‘Destin’ from the first word and ‘y’ from the second word”. He was a little mum after hearing this kind of word association. By this time his voice tone had also come down. He said, “You are right sir. I need to accept the things the way they are.” I was delighted as he accepted my logic once again. I knew it was wrong, but I could not help enjoying the false pride in winning the debate. On the face, I showed modesty and made a remark, “It was the biased GOD, who wrote the destiny for you, so be cool”.
But somewhere deep in my heart I was also aware of the limits of my logic. I was still struggling to find the answer to the same question which he initially asked me. “Is GOD biased?”. If he is really there, he has to be.
I did my schooling from a public school in Nainital, which is now in Uttarakhand. Our school syllabus was quite advanced and modern mathematics teaching used to begin quite early. I was just eleven years of age at that time. The problem of proving that root of two is an irrational entity was being taught to us. The solution begins with the statement, “let’s assume that the root of two is a rational entity”. I asked the teacher, “Sir! Why we first assume the reverse to do such a proof”. The reply from the teacher still knocks me quite often.
“O my child! Science begins with doubt and lands up finding the truth.”
I always remembered this line all along my studies of science and technology. Later when I started debating with people on the subject of religion versus science, I added the corollary that;
“Religion begins with faith and lands up doubting what the truth is”.
Now-a-days, I struggle very often to justify these two statements to myself. Is it necessary for people with scientific temperament to doubt the things to know about the truth? Is this doubt another name for ‘curiosity’? Why is it so, that most religious preachers are not able to explain the things, the way science explains things. Why do we still talk about ancient books only when we talk about religion? Why don’t we add up or modify the knowledge that has been acquired by the society after those ancient books were written.
The answers I tried to come up with after churning my mind gave me some temporary relief. I write down my feelings as follows. Hardcore doubt and blind faith both are two extremes and are not justified. In science also, we have faith that we will find the result, and only then we are able to move further. In religion too, we are able to gain faith only when our doubts are successfully removed. Let both these assets of human society, science and religion, go hand in hand to grow eternally.