Misinterpreting Freedom

Tuesday, November 2, 2010, written by Sonali

Recently, I was discussing Hinduism and the ideas of freedom and maya with one of my close friends. When I explained to her that for me, the goal of Hinduism — and of my life — is to become free and to understand that there is more to reality than just this physical world, she made a really interesting point: doesn’t such thinking justify our lack of concern about the deterioration of the world around us?

In other words, if we assume that the world is an illusion, it becomes really easy to do all sorts of terrible things; if the world isn’t real, then it doesn’t really matter if we pollute it, or brings species to extinction, or exhaust our natural resources, or wage wars; thinking that the world is an illusion may give some people license to damage the earth.

I wasn’t sure how to respond, other than that people who honestly believe that there is something beyond this world would naturally act in ways that help others and in ways that don’t damage the earth…But I thought she had a really important point, that it is really easy to misinterpret this idea of freedom.
 How would you guys respond to this? How can we know the correct way to interpret our religion, assuming that my earlier explanation is “correct”?

Comments (1)

Worshiping God as Mother

Thursday, October 21, 2010, written by Sonali

Since we recently celebrated Navratri, the idea of worshiping God in the form of Mother has increasingly been on my mind. A close family friend recently sent me an email about a service she had attended in the New York Ramakrishna Vedanta Center, where the topic of the lecture was “Worship of God as Mother.” I really liked one of the explanations that Swami Yuktatmananda gave during the lecture:

It is like as long as a child is playing with toys his mother attends to all her other duties; but the moment the child throws away all toys and cries for Mother, she runs to him and take him in her lap. Mother — Mayamaya — also lets us play with things of world until we are not satisfied with them. As long as we are happy with the worldly enjoyments, she lets us be absorbed in them. Once we are done with these joys, we begin to search for something abiding, permanent. We begin the search for Mother, and finally find her so close to us.

I thought it was a really beautiful way of explaining Maya, as well as our relationship to God.


Comments (1)

Feynman on Science vs Religion

Friday, October 15, 2010, written by ak

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.

Comments (0)