1-2. Devote your whole mind to me and practice yoga.  Take me as your only refuge.  I will tell you how, by doing this, you can know me in your total reality, without any shadow of doubt.  I will give you all this knowledge and direct spiritual experience.  When a person has that, nothing else in the world remains to be known.

Swami Tyagananda points out that there is a distinction here between knowledge and experience.  Through the study of the Gita, we gain intellectual knowledge.  But the real change in our lives comes from spiritual experience, when we truly live according to the teachings of the Gita.  And, as quoted above, Krishna says, “when a person has that, nothing else in the world remains to be known.”  Any other kind of knowledge (e.g. all of the knowledge we have gained in our courses at Harvard) is necessarily incomplete.

It seems obvious that, if you believe there is truth in the Gita, you would see the value in attaining that which leaves nothing else in the world to be known.  But some may still ask, “why do we need knowledge of the ultimate reality when I am living perfectly fine without it?”  And we see that most people go through their lives without seeking or even wanting knowledge of the ultimate reality.  Knowing this, we may ask, “If I can live a perfectly fine life without learning this knowledge, why should I go through the trouble?”  What this knowledge of the ultimate reality will do is that it will remove the sense of unfulfillment in our hearts.  If we are honest with ourselves and look closely at the lives of the people that surround us and that have come before us, it is clear that both joy and suffering are inherent aspects of life.  Although most people would acknowledge this, it is those who are dissatisfied with this constant up and down who say, “no, there is something wrong here, I do not simply want to accept this life and hope for the best, I want to see if something can be done about it.”  It is those who have this hunger who will seek knowledge of the ultimate reality.  Whether this inner hunger or even the initial stages of a reflective and questioning life come about depends largely on how much we look at life and reflect upon it.

Swami makes a very important observation: most people are so engrossed in their immediate obligations and planning for the future and worrying about the past that rarely, if at all, do people step back and ask, “What is this life?  What does it all mean?”  This issue is not only relevant in a spiritual context, but in the secular context as well.  A recent book by Yale Law Professor Tony Kronman also points out the decreasing engagement with these important questions.  Thus, many busily travel through their lives, at one point busily studying for and stressing about midterms, and then moving on to think about graduate school and jobs, then getting married and having children, then becoming a grandparent, then getting old, and only then, perhaps, will a person look back and think, “What was the meaning of it all?”  In sloka 7 of chapter 7, Krishna says:

7. Who cares to seek for that perfect freedom?  One person, perhaps, in many thousands.  Then tell me how many of those who seek freedom shall know the total truth of my being?  Perhaps one only.

Thus, there is no guarantee of freedom for those who seek it, but by seeking, one gives herself the opportunity to make spiritual progress which is carried into the next life.

We also read slokas 16-17 which classify the four kinds of people who turn to religion:

16-17. Among those who are purified by the good deeds, there are four kinds of people who worship me: the relief seeker, the knowledge seeker, the material seeker, and the spiritual seeker.  The spiritual seeker is the highest of these.  He is continually united with me.  He devotes himself to me always, and to no other.  For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to me.

The relief seeker is the person who turns to God when there are difficulties and challenges and hopes that God’s help will remove these difficulties.  The knowledge seeker is the person who has questions about life and/or the universe and turns to religion for an answer to these questions.  The material seeker would like to have things that he is unable to obtain, so he may turn to God to ask for these things.  The spiritual seeker is the one who has seen the underlying, unfulfilling nature of the universe and, as discussed above, are searching for a way out of this state of unfulfillment.  People in this fourth category are really seeking the Spirit.  Swami points out that each of these four types of people are disappointed with something.  The first three are disappointed about something in life, while the last is disappointed with life itself.  For the first three types of people, God is a means to an end, for the spiritual seeker, he is the end in itself.

These are just a few of the ideas that we discussed during the Gita study group.  If you would like to listen to a recording of the study group, mp3 files will be available on dropbox.

Related posts:

1. Gita Study Group 2.21.11 In this week’s Bhagavad Gita study group with Swami Tyagananda,...
2. Resting in Brahman Every Friday afternoon, a small group of us meet at...
3. The Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 5 I wanted to follow up this past week’s discussion on...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Swami Tyagananda outlined four main ideas about the theory of karma which explain what it is and what it is not: 1) karma is based on the law of cause and effect; 2) karma determines only our experience and not our actions; 3) karma is always individual and never collective; 4) karma is empowering, we should not think that we are the victims of karma.

Karma is based on the law of cause and effect.  We experience cause and effect throughout our daily lives; however, there are times when our experiences are difficult to connect to a specific cause.  These are the times when we may ask, “Why?”  The theory of karma says that all of our actions—in this life or in previous lives—will be met with experiences of happiness or sorrow (sukha or dukkha).  In this way, the theory of karma offers a way of understanding the experiences in our lives that otherwise may seem random or unjust.

Karma determines only our experience and not our actions.  What we do in this life is not the result of actions in a previous life.  Therefore, karma cannot be blamed for our bad actions.  Our actions in this life, however, may be affected but not determined by our past lives through samskara.  Samskara are mental impressions that give us tendencies toward certain actions.  The workings of samskara can be seen through an example that Swami Tyagananda offers.  When someone tastes chocolate ice cream for the first time, they may enjoy it and have it again and again and develop deeper and deeper mental impressions about chocolate ice cream.  Now, with these mental impressions, that person may have a strong desire to eat chocolate ice cream, however, he still has the choice of whether or not to eat the ice cream.  In this way, samskara may influence the way we act, but they do not dictate what action we ultimately choose.

Karma is always individual and never collective.  There are times when people talk about the collective karma of a group or a country.  This is especially prevalent when there are natural disasters or wars.  This idea of collective karma is simply not a part of the theory of karma.  When thousands of people are victims of a natural disaster, the theory of karma says that each of those people’s individual karma dictated that they have that experience.  It just so happened that they experienced it at the same time and in the same place.  In the same way, there are people in different places that experience happiness and sorrow at the same time or people that enjoy experiences of happiness and sorrow in the same place but at different times.  Thus, in terms of the theory of karma, we should not interpret a collective experience of happiness or sorrow as an indication that those people have a collective karma.

Karma is empowering, we should not think that we are the victims of karma.  This point is connected with the second point made above.  Karma should not be confused with fate or destiny.  Karma does not dictate our actions.  The theory of karma says that we are responsible for our actions and ultimately for our experiences.  Thus, instead of being the victims of a capricious world, karma is a theory that says that we are in control of our future experiences.  With these ideas in mind, we should cast off our childish habit of blaming the outside world for our bad experiences and feel empowered to determine our future experiences through our current actions.  Furthermore, as karma helps us understand the suffering in our lives, it will also help us to cope with this suffering.  While suffering is inevitable, misery is optional.  This means that our experiences of joy and sorrow will come, but we need not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by these experiences.  Chapter 2, Sloka 38 (among other slokas) of the Gita speaks to this idea:

Make grief and happiness, loss and gain, victory and defeat equal to thy soul and then turn to battle; so thou shalt not incur sin.

After explaining these four ideas, Swami Tyagananda emphasized that karma is simply a way of thinking about the world.  It is one possible explanation of why we see such variation in the world, why some people are born into abject poverty and some are born into fortunes.  I, myself, have difficulty thinking about how to reconcile the idea of karma with an idea of God’s role in the affairs of the world.  If the theory of karma holds, is God subject to our actions?  Although Swami could not give a definitive answer to this question, one of his comments did help ease the feeling that an answer to this question is unavoidably necessary.  He said that karma is a way of thinking about the world, it is a concept.  Concepts only exist in the mind.  The mind itself is in the world.  If you believe that God is ultimately the only reality and that our experience of the world (including the mind) only exists in Maya, then the reconciliation of these ideas—in a way our finite minds can understand—seems less important.

In fact, the theory of karma includes the idea that it does not have to go on forever.  Although karma cannot be separated from its effects, we can separate the self from karma and its effects.  The idea that we have agency and are the doers of actions (karta) and also experience the pleasure or pain that result from this action (bhokta) connect us with work and its results.  When a person can detach himself from the sense of doership and experiencership, he can free himself from karma.  We all experience this state of detachment in our sleep.  Vedanta says that you can cultivate this state of mind even when awake.

This last idea appears in Chapter 4, Slokas 20-23 (as well as in other places) of the Gita:

20. Having abandoned all attachment to the fruits of his works, ever satisfied without any kind of dependence, he does nothing though (through his nature) he engages in action.

21. He has no personal hopes, does not seize on things as his personal possessions; his heart and self are under perfect control; performing action by the body alone, he does not commit sin.

22. He who is satisfied with whatever gain comes to him, who has passed beyond the dualities, is jealous of none, is equal in failure and success, he is not bound even when he acts.

23. When a man liberated, free from attachment, with his mind, heart and spirit firmly founded in self-knowledge, does works as sacrifice, all his work is dissolved.

Note: The translations of the Gita come from Sri Aurobindo’s Bhagavad Gita and its Message

Related posts:

1. The Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 5 I wanted to follow up this past week’s discussion on...
2. Detaching ourselves…from ourselves When all we have to face is the ordinariness of...
3. In Search of the True Self There is much discussion in Hindu literature about the true...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related posts:

1. Faith in ourselves I was looking through some past journals and blogs that...
2. Pascal’s Wager On Saturday, my father was explaining to me Pascal's Wager. ...
3. They alone live who live for others… The following quote by Swami Vivekananda has always been one...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

ARE all religions the same, in essence? Or are there fundamental differences that really can’t be resolved? Given my background, I’m always tempted to find ways to explain away what seem like fundamental differences; however, I wonder if that is the best approach…

In any case, here is the quote that spurred this post:

The idea of an objective God is not untrue–in fact, every idea of God, and hence every religion, is true, as each is but a different stage in the journey, the aim of which is the perfect conception of the Vedas. Hence, too, Hindus not only tolerate but accept every religion, praying in the mosques of the Muslims, worshiping before the fire of the Zoroastrians, and kneeling before the cross of the Christians, knowing that all the religions, from the lowest fetishism to the highest absolutism, mean so many attempts of the human soul to grasp and realize the infinite, each determined by the conditions of its birth and association, and each of them marking a stage of progress. We gather all these flowers and bind them with the twine of love, making a wonderful bouquet of worship.

Related posts:

1. The Ashramas of Life It is noted that in almost every religion, there are...
2. Question of the Week: Is Hinduism a religion? At one of our weekly discussions a while back, we...
3. Explanations As Saketh mentioned yesterday, there seems to be an almost...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I don’t know the answer to this central problem – the problem of maintaining the real value of religion, as a source of strength and of courage to most men, while, at the same time, not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical aspects.
– Richard Feynman

Most of us, at one time or another, have felt some tension between religion and science, between ancient thought and modern discoveries, between Vedic wisdom and secular traditions. Probably the greatest challenge to my faith has come not from any religion, but from adopting a scientific world view. So I was fascinated to come across Richard Feynman’s thoughts on the topic. Here is a speech he gave on the conflict between science & religion: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm.

Feynman’s argument is very methodical, and I’ve tried to reconstruct it here.  In another post, I will give my thoughts on how I interpreted it in the context of Hinduism.

1. Religion has three aspects: the metaphysical, the ethical, and the inspirational.

The metaphysical aspect of religion is that which comments on the nature & origin of the world. What is the nature of God? What is the nature of the Self? Stories of how the world came to be fall into this category. Guidelines on behavior, and advice on the right ways to act and live contribute to the ethical aspect. This can take the form of simple advice from parents, or can also be scriptural dictums to follow one’s own duty. The third aspect, the inspirational, is perhaps the most essential. Inspiration is what brings people to follow the ethical guidelines. It can take the form of communal festivals like Diwali, or may simply consist of the telling of tales like the Ramayana. When people refer to “organized religion”, I think they are generally referring to organized inspiration.

2. The inspirational aspect, which is derived from the metaphysical, enables the practice of the ethical aspect.

Here, Feynman makes what I think is a fairly uncontroversial claim: that the inspirational aspect of religion enables the ethical aspect. Any ethical code needs some inspiration, be it intrinsic or extrinsic, to be followed. The idea that the inspirational must derive from the metaphysical is more subject to debate. It seems to hold true for many Western religions, though I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on how it applies (or doesn’t) to Hinduism.

3. While science does not conflict with the ethical aspect, it (necessarily) conflicts with the metaphysical aspect.

Because the metaphysical aspect postulates statements that are not (and often cannot be) scientifically proven, science is necessarily in conflict here.

4. Because it conflicts with the metaphysical aspect, it also undermines the inspirational aspect of religion.

If we accept Feynman’s claim in #2 that the inspirational aspect derives from the metaphysical, then this statement follows directly from #3.

5. Therefore, the strength of the moral code, the ethical aspect of religion, is lost.

When the inspirational aspect is undermined, religious ethics lose their value.

6. Therefore, while science is logically consistent with religious ethics, it does not support the inspirational aspect of religion, which is the lifeblood of most people’s faiths.

Feynman acknowledges that science can be consistent with religious ethics. However, because it conflicts with the metaphysical and inspirational aspects of religion, science cannot be consistent with religion as Feynman knows it.

7. He concludes: “I don’t know the answer to this central problem – the problem of maintaining the real value of religion, as a source of strength and of courage to most men, while, at the same time, not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical aspects.”

His conclusion acknowledges the value of religion, but he cannot reconcile his religion with his science. Fortunately, all is not lost — Feynman provides an opening here. The way to argue against Feynman is to find a way to support the inspirational aspect of religion that is logically consistent with science.

Related posts:

1. Science and Religion This semester, I took one of the most thought-provoking...
2. Living Morally Without Universal Morality A lot of the discussion on Swadharma focuses on how...
3. The social aspect of religion Today at Wellesley, we had our Darshana (our Hindu student’s...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.