We all are electrical and magnetic beings. In the literal sense. All our bodily functions are electrically operated, starting with the electrical components of our brains which take ‘data’ from out of our senses and elsewhere.
Magnetically we are aligned to Earth, which is a giant magnet itself. Earth’s hot liquid centre core contains iron, and as it moves, it creates an electric current that causes a magnetic field around the Earth. Earth’s rotation keeps the current on the surface consistent.
Our seers of old understood this and devised ways to affiliate, correlate and correspond our activities with the electrical and magnetic properties of Earth. They couched these devices in words that are called religious/mythological nowadays but were, in reality, the science of the day.
Either we call it vastu shastra or feng shui or astrology, the purpose remains the same: placing yourself and things around you (your home, your temple, your workplace) in alignment and relation to Earth’s magnetism or Earth’s place in the cosmic arrangement.
Let me introduce someone who defined electricity for mankind, who developed the alternating current and sought to power the globe with free electricity. His name was Nikola Tesla and the name is synonymous with electricity, more so than perhaps Thomas Edison.
Some ideas of Tesla, although demonstrated by him, reached in realms that were not understandable, even now. These ideas did not emanate from Western science but from the Vedas themselves. Tesla met and was influenced by Swami Vivekananda in the waning part of the 19th century when the Swami was travelling around the United States.
As early as 1891 Tesla described the universe as a kinetic system filled with energy. He used ancient Sanskrit terminology in his descriptions of natural phenomena, most notably Akasha, Prana, and the concept of a luminiferous ether to describe the source, existence and construction of matter.
"There manifests itself in the fully developed being , Man, a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives.... Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance."
From article written May 13th, 1907 and included in a biography of Tesla by J. J. O'Neill (1968, repr. 1986).
In a letter to a friend, dated February 13th, 1896, Swami Vivekananda noted the following:
...Mr. Tesla was charmed to hear about the Vedantic Prana and Akasha and the Kalpas, which according to him are the only theories modern science can entertain.....Mr Tesla thinks he can demonstrate mathematically that force and matter are reducible to potential energy.
The Swami later remarked during a lecture in India, "I myself have been told by some of the best scientific minds of the day, how wonderfully rational the conclusions of the Vedanta are. I know of one of them personally, who scarcely has time to eat his meal, or go out of his laboratory, but who would stand by the hour to attend my lectures on the Vedanta; for, as he expresses it, they are so scientific, they so exactly harmonize with the aspirations of the age and with the conclusions to which modern science is coming at the present time".
Tesla invented many useful devices: a system of arc lighting (1886), the alternating current motor, power generation and transmission systems (1888), systems of electrical conversion and distribution by oscillatory discharges (1889), and a generator of high frequency currents (1890), including the basis for the wireless transmission of electrical power which is know as the Tesla Coil Transformer.
His understanding of Vedic terminology paved the way to greater understanding of electromagnetism and the nature of the universe. This included the controversial "world system" for "the transmission of electrical energy without wires" that depends upon the electrical conductivity of the earth.
The digression above is to demonstrate how Vedic thought influenced one of the greatest proponents of electricity generation and distribution. The fact that he died poor and distraught while Westinghouse went on to power America with Tesla’s technology is another story.
Our rishis understood where mankind stood in relation to the Earth and the universe and offered wisdom to ensure we, as a species, did not lose that connection. The most evident of the tools devised by the rishis is jyotish, the Hindu astrology ‘science’.
Some astronomers are looking into finding a scientific method to explain astrology and are also seeing tidal physics as the linchpin in astrology work. One of them is Astrophysicist Percy Seymour, author of The Scientific Proof of Astrology: Tuning to the Music of the Planets, who thinks parts of astrology work through four features of nature: magnetism, harmonic resonance, genetics and neurology.
Astrology, according to Seymour, is based on the alignment of planetary/solar magnetic fields which create a magnetic tonal chord on Earth. This tonal chord or harmony plays a part in the neurological development of the fetus. The moment of birth determines which special cosmic tone or rising planet the fetus is ‘born under’. The individual remains attuned to the particular planetary alignment for life.
The magnetic field of Earth reflects how the planets are moving around the sun and even how Earth is moving around the sun. And as the moon goes round Earth it affects the tides not only in the ocean but in the magnetosphere [Earth's magnetic field].
The ‘scientific’ approach to astrology works on the premises that material forces and arrangement of matter (gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear energies, sun/planets/earth/moon orbital relations) can cause a specific and predictable type of personality and life pattern. Dr. Seymour
Earth and other planets cause a very complex tune to be played on the magnetic field of Earth. The symphony, of course, is made up of tunes. The astrologer, if he is truly adept at what he does, would be able to identify these tunes separately and see how they affect an individual’s life at any given time, now and in the future, after working out the placement of planets.
This leads to the typecasting of personality by astrologers according to the twelve signs of the zodiac.
In an earlier book, "Astrology: The Evidence of Science", Dr. Seymour put forward the theory of “magneto-astrology", which supposes that human biological clocks keep time with the planets.
Not only the biological clock, but also most other aspects of life. Science can confirm now that sun flares affect life on Earth, largely in a tumultuous way. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Hindu rishis of yore knew of the planets affecting life and sought to understand this effect on the earth, and on our lives. Apart from astrology, they also devised vastu shastra, the traditional Hindu system of design based on directional alignments. Vastu shastra focuses on invisible and constant relation between all the five elements, earth, air, fire, water and space. It prescribes desirable characteristics for sites and buildings based on flow of energy (prana).
More individualised was the tool of meditation called raising the kundalini. This meditation works on the principle that there are energy centres within the body which need to be activated by concentrating electrical energy from within. These ‘chakras’, once ‘raised’ or activated, resulted in a harmony of self and the unlocking of powers in the individual.
Sadly the proponents of these and other ‘socio-religious’ practices have somehow lost sight of much of the depth of the practice and can now only offer a smattering of the actuality that was the science of the day. But that’s another issue.
The gauss, abbreviated as G, is the unit of measurement of a magnetic field (which is also known as the "magnetic flux density", or the "magnetic induction"), named after the German mathematician and physicist Carl Friedrich Gauss. One gauss is defined as one maxwell per square centimetre. The magnetic field magnitude measured at the surface of the Earth is about half a Gauss and dips toward Earth in the northern hemisphere. The magnitude varies over the surface of Earth in the range 0.3 to 0.6 Gauss.
Prana means energy (usually translated as life force) and Akasha means matter (usually translated as ether).
The Vedas are a collection of writings consisting of hymns, prayers, myths, historical accounting, dissertations on science, and the nature of reality, which date back at least 5,000 years. The nature of matter, antimatter, and the make up of atomic structure are described in the Vedas. The language of the Vedas is known as Sanskrit.
The year 2006 was celebrated by UNESCO as the 150th anniversary of the birth of Nikola Tesla, scientist, as well as being proclaimed by the governments of Croatia and Serbia to be the Year of Tesla.
Even in Tesla's time, some believed that he was actually an angelic being from Venus sent to Earth to reveal scientific knowledge to humanity. This belief is maintained in present times by followers of Nuwaubianism.
After Tesla’s death the US War Department declared his papers to be top secret. The personal effects were sequestered on the advice of presidential advisers; J. Edgar Hoover declared the case most secret, because of the nature of Tesla's inventions and patents. One document stated that "[he] is reported to have some 80 trunks in different places containing transcripts and plans having to do with his experiments [...]".
Altogether, in Tesla's effects, there were the contents of his safe, two truckloads of papers and apparati from his hotel, another 75 packing crates and trunks in a storage facility, and another 80 large storage trunks in another storage facility. The Navy and several "federal officials" spent two days microfilming some of the stuff at the Office of Alien Properties storage facility in 1943.
The crater Tesla on the far side of the Moon and the minor planet 2244 Tesla are named after him.
The United States Supreme Court, in 1943 held Marconi's patent of the wireless invalid, recognizing Tesla's more significant contribution as the inventor of radio technology.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Redefining our concept of God
Leaving some scientists and all atheists aside, the bulk of humanity believes in the existence of a being that brought about creation, and thus us, into existence. In fact less than 15 per cent of the world population state that they do not believe in God, or gods (Year 2000 figure).
Yet for all it is worth, none of our mainstream religions have come up with a god that is for all people at all places for all times. Why is this so, considering that 85 per cent of humanity believes in the existence of God?
The main reason for this division of adherents for a particular god is the “protection of the faith” dilemma faced by those who believe in the validity of the beliefs they hold dear. It is a veritable survival of the fittest contest when it comes to keeping the flame burning.
Where any religion plans to extend its influence, it has to resort to vilification of others and exaggeration of its own excellences. Pomp and publicity become more important than practice and faith.
Each religion promotes its god as the only one, and the rest are deemed fake, phoneys or figments of imagination. It is either my god; or their god, or a demon/devil posing as god, or anything except the possibility that it could be god.
The egoistic craving for power and competitive success has, in some cases, persuaded us to use religion as an instrument of torture and persecution. Instead of uniting mankind in a common endeavour, it has become a system of walled enclosures, guarded by hate and fanaticism.
The belief system surrounding any god has been built up over generations, and is based on “tried and true” ways of interpreting events that brought about a collective belief. For example, what would Judaism be without the laws of Moses, or Islam without Prophet Mohammed’s (Praise Be To His Name) call to his people, or Christianity without Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, or Hinduism without its concept of an avatar, or Buddhism without Buddha?
I believe each religion attempts to impart holy ideals in the heart of man. But, man does not allow them to sprout and grow. Each religion has become an armed camp. Set in the path to self aggrandizement, trying to wean others into itself and preventing defections from it, religion, in many cases, is the root of chaos and conflict.
The teacher may have been inclusive, compassionate, a propagator of news ideas (so well demonstrated by Jesus and Prophet Mohammed) but not so the followers. Rigid rules and thought patterns were the outcomes of a system that wanted to retain its beliefs at all costs. At the cost of thought. At the cost of humanity.
It is these feelings of elitism, of exclusivity, of being the chosen lot that makes religions the laughing stock of any rational person. And the fanatics who maintain that their god is the only right one puts paid to the idea that religion has any saving grace.
Yet, and I mean this emphatically, God remains a most vital aspect of humanity. Take away the dross of any system of beliefs and God becomes apparent. But first you have to take away the dross.
This means making an effort to wean yourself away from the conditioning and habits of what you have learnt as part of your culture’s interpretation of God.
One of the best ways of doing this is to answer the following questions honestly:
Do you believe God is omniscient, that He knows every thought of yours, even the ones you don’t want Him to know?
If yes, do you firmly believe that anything you do, think, or say, from the smallest act/thought/word to the grossest, is known to Him?
Do you act as if every act and thought of yours is known to Him?
Do you believe God is omnipresent? If yes, does this mean that God is in everything around and beyond you? Is this an intellectual belief or a belief that you live by? Do you treat anyone you meet as an embodiment of God, no matter how evil he is or what wrong he has done to you? Do you believe every living thing is an embodiment of God?
If you don’t, then God can’t be omnipresent and it puts paid to the idea that god is all-knowing and present everywhere. Then he can’t be god. No amount of qualifying can get past this idea – if God is to be omniscient and omnipresent, He must know what you think, say or do and if He is omnipresent, He is everywhere, in you, outside of you and in everything else you see.
Only after we have accepted these two ideas can we even begin to look at the omnipotence of God.
The practice of believing that God is omniscient and omnipresent is the royal road to godhead, not any other thing. All rites and rituals in any religion does but one thing, purify our thoughts enough for this one belief to take root in our minds; that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.
God by any name should still be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. This is the test of faith, of belief in your system and it should be what decides who believes in God and who doesn’t.
Notes to ponder
1. As of 2000, approximately 53 per cent of the world's population identifies with one of the three Abrahamic religions (33 per cent Christian, 20 per cent Islam, <1 per cent Judaism), 6 per cent with Buddhism, 13 per cent with Hinduism, 6 per cent with traditional Chinese religion, 7 per cent with various other religions, and less than 15 per cent as non-religious. Most of these religious beliefs involve a god or gods
2. The word "deity" derives from the Latin "dea", ("goddess"), and '"deus", ("god"), and other Indo-European roots such as from the Sanskrit "deva", ("god"), "devi", ("goddess"), "divya", ("transcendental", "spiritual"). Related are words for "sky": the Latin "dies" ("day") and "divum" ("open sky"), and the Sanskrit "div," "diu" ("sky," "day," "shine"). Also related are "divine" and "divinity," from the Latin "divinus," from "divus." Khoda (Persian: ??? ) translates to God from Persian.
The English word "God" comes from Anglo-Saxon, and similar words are found in many Germanic languages (e.g. the German "Gott" — "God").
3. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal and unable to be changed by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.
4. Some Jewish, Christian and Muslim Medieval philosophers, including Moses Maimonides and Pseudo-Dionysius, as well as many sages of other religions, developed what is termed as Apophatic Theology or the Via Negativa, the idea that one cannot posit attributes to God and can only be discussed by what God is not. For example, we cannot say that God "exists" in the usual sense of the term, because that term is human defined and God's qualities such as existence may not be accurately characterized by it. What we can safely say is that it cannot be proven empirically or otherwise that God is existent, therefore God is not non-existent. Likewise God's "wisdom" is of a fundamentally different kind from limited human perception. So we cannot use the word "wise" to describe God, because this implies he is wise in the way we usually describe humans being wise. However we can safely say that God is not ignorant. We should not say that God is One, because we may not truly understand his nature, but we can state that there is no multiplicity in God's being.
The above concept is also prevalent in Hinduism as seen by the phrase “neti, neti Brahman”, (this in not Brahman) in pursuing the ideal of what is Brahman and what is the jagat (world).
5. 'Process theology' is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), and 'Open theism' is a theological movement that began in the 1990s, is similar, but not identical, to Process theology.
In both views, God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being. Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God and creatures co-create. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. Process theology is compatible with panentheism, the concept that God contains the universe (pantheism) but also transcends it. God as the ultimate logician - God may be defined as the only entity, by definition, possessing the ability to reduce an infinite number of logical equations having an infinite number of variables and an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously.
Yet for all it is worth, none of our mainstream religions have come up with a god that is for all people at all places for all times. Why is this so, considering that 85 per cent of humanity believes in the existence of God?
The main reason for this division of adherents for a particular god is the “protection of the faith” dilemma faced by those who believe in the validity of the beliefs they hold dear. It is a veritable survival of the fittest contest when it comes to keeping the flame burning.
Where any religion plans to extend its influence, it has to resort to vilification of others and exaggeration of its own excellences. Pomp and publicity become more important than practice and faith.
Each religion promotes its god as the only one, and the rest are deemed fake, phoneys or figments of imagination. It is either my god; or their god, or a demon/devil posing as god, or anything except the possibility that it could be god.
The egoistic craving for power and competitive success has, in some cases, persuaded us to use religion as an instrument of torture and persecution. Instead of uniting mankind in a common endeavour, it has become a system of walled enclosures, guarded by hate and fanaticism.
The belief system surrounding any god has been built up over generations, and is based on “tried and true” ways of interpreting events that brought about a collective belief. For example, what would Judaism be without the laws of Moses, or Islam without Prophet Mohammed’s (Praise Be To His Name) call to his people, or Christianity without Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, or Hinduism without its concept of an avatar, or Buddhism without Buddha?
I believe each religion attempts to impart holy ideals in the heart of man. But, man does not allow them to sprout and grow. Each religion has become an armed camp. Set in the path to self aggrandizement, trying to wean others into itself and preventing defections from it, religion, in many cases, is the root of chaos and conflict.
The teacher may have been inclusive, compassionate, a propagator of news ideas (so well demonstrated by Jesus and Prophet Mohammed) but not so the followers. Rigid rules and thought patterns were the outcomes of a system that wanted to retain its beliefs at all costs. At the cost of thought. At the cost of humanity.
It is these feelings of elitism, of exclusivity, of being the chosen lot that makes religions the laughing stock of any rational person. And the fanatics who maintain that their god is the only right one puts paid to the idea that religion has any saving grace.
Yet, and I mean this emphatically, God remains a most vital aspect of humanity. Take away the dross of any system of beliefs and God becomes apparent. But first you have to take away the dross.
This means making an effort to wean yourself away from the conditioning and habits of what you have learnt as part of your culture’s interpretation of God.
One of the best ways of doing this is to answer the following questions honestly:
Do you believe God is omniscient, that He knows every thought of yours, even the ones you don’t want Him to know?
If yes, do you firmly believe that anything you do, think, or say, from the smallest act/thought/word to the grossest, is known to Him?
Do you act as if every act and thought of yours is known to Him?
Do you believe God is omnipresent? If yes, does this mean that God is in everything around and beyond you? Is this an intellectual belief or a belief that you live by? Do you treat anyone you meet as an embodiment of God, no matter how evil he is or what wrong he has done to you? Do you believe every living thing is an embodiment of God?
If you don’t, then God can’t be omnipresent and it puts paid to the idea that god is all-knowing and present everywhere. Then he can’t be god. No amount of qualifying can get past this idea – if God is to be omniscient and omnipresent, He must know what you think, say or do and if He is omnipresent, He is everywhere, in you, outside of you and in everything else you see.
Only after we have accepted these two ideas can we even begin to look at the omnipotence of God.
The practice of believing that God is omniscient and omnipresent is the royal road to godhead, not any other thing. All rites and rituals in any religion does but one thing, purify our thoughts enough for this one belief to take root in our minds; that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.
God by any name should still be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. This is the test of faith, of belief in your system and it should be what decides who believes in God and who doesn’t.
Notes to ponder
1. As of 2000, approximately 53 per cent of the world's population identifies with one of the three Abrahamic religions (33 per cent Christian, 20 per cent Islam, <1 per cent Judaism), 6 per cent with Buddhism, 13 per cent with Hinduism, 6 per cent with traditional Chinese religion, 7 per cent with various other religions, and less than 15 per cent as non-religious. Most of these religious beliefs involve a god or gods
2. The word "deity" derives from the Latin "dea", ("goddess"), and '"deus", ("god"), and other Indo-European roots such as from the Sanskrit "deva", ("god"), "devi", ("goddess"), "divya", ("transcendental", "spiritual"). Related are words for "sky": the Latin "dies" ("day") and "divum" ("open sky"), and the Sanskrit "div," "diu" ("sky," "day," "shine"). Also related are "divine" and "divinity," from the Latin "divinus," from "divus." Khoda (Persian: ??? ) translates to God from Persian.
The English word "God" comes from Anglo-Saxon, and similar words are found in many Germanic languages (e.g. the German "Gott" — "God").
3. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal and unable to be changed by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.
4. Some Jewish, Christian and Muslim Medieval philosophers, including Moses Maimonides and Pseudo-Dionysius, as well as many sages of other religions, developed what is termed as Apophatic Theology or the Via Negativa, the idea that one cannot posit attributes to God and can only be discussed by what God is not. For example, we cannot say that God "exists" in the usual sense of the term, because that term is human defined and God's qualities such as existence may not be accurately characterized by it. What we can safely say is that it cannot be proven empirically or otherwise that God is existent, therefore God is not non-existent. Likewise God's "wisdom" is of a fundamentally different kind from limited human perception. So we cannot use the word "wise" to describe God, because this implies he is wise in the way we usually describe humans being wise. However we can safely say that God is not ignorant. We should not say that God is One, because we may not truly understand his nature, but we can state that there is no multiplicity in God's being.
The above concept is also prevalent in Hinduism as seen by the phrase “neti, neti Brahman”, (this in not Brahman) in pursuing the ideal of what is Brahman and what is the jagat (world).
5. 'Process theology' is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), and 'Open theism' is a theological movement that began in the 1990s, is similar, but not identical, to Process theology.
In both views, God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being. Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God and creatures co-create. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. Process theology is compatible with panentheism, the concept that God contains the universe (pantheism) but also transcends it. God as the ultimate logician - God may be defined as the only entity, by definition, possessing the ability to reduce an infinite number of logical equations having an infinite number of variables and an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously.
The Meek Inheritance
THE MEEK INHERITANCE – Written Feb 2001, Puttaparthi, India
Prologue
My method is to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, then say it with the utmost levity – George Bernard Shaw
Why doesn’t God clean up the mess that is this world? This question has been asked so many times that I think it has become trite enough to be slotted to the back of mankind’s psyche. The question has swathed out enough of mankind generation after generation into that unanchored group called atheists. Because man has made the mistake of putting a form to God, and that form may not be agreeable to all, atheists take up minds against God and everything connected to God.
And religiously-inclined people have done nothing to change the mind of these so-called atheists. On the contrary, their very behaviour - their acting at being pious - has turned off even people who are willing to give God half a chance. For being religious is the stupidest thing a man could be. It is an unnatural state for a human to be in. It is a contrived state, brought about by the mind twisting certain facts, certain fiction and a whole lot of imagination into a creed that a child would reject out of hand. Yet, grown-ups have died for these creeds, shedding blood like water.
Being religious is contraction – it tries to project God as a figment of imagination, the imagination belonging to someone who has had a vision of God and most probably does a bad job of putting out that vision to other people. His enthusiasm seems far greater than his ability to tell people what God is. Then the adherents of that form force people to worship that figment of God that they think is right. If a god that could be captured in just one form, that god is a very limited god indeed. All names and forms are his. To deride one and worship another is the greatest sin, if there is something called sin.
A man going to war for God is to be pitied, and kicked on the backside. No one can say they have fought for God – they have only fought for what they think represents God – Jerusalem, the Kabba, the Babri Masjid, the Ayodhya temple. A god that wants one people to fight another people is a disaster of a god. Worshippers of such gods are the true heathens and pagans. The best Christian, the best Muslim, the best Hindu has been the one who forgot everything and concentrated in adoring the object of their adoration without saying a single word to hurt another human. All the rest have been men and women with a motive behind their belief, tainted by some human emotion like greed or revenge.
Religion limits God and any religion that limits God, or the abilities of God, is a sham. And to ask people to blindly follow God is to insult their intelligence. God does not want faith, blind or otherwise, but trust. And trust can only be given after a thorough testing, a rational testing. This is where all religions have failed for the stupid atheist.
I call him stupid because he wants to test figments of imagination while God looms in his face, and around it and inside his head. To test Christ, to test Krishna, to test Buddha – how is it possible? They existed millennia ago. What they were in actuality and what they became after several generations had spin-doctored their story is the cause of much strife in this world.
Christ did not want to start a sect – Paul did that in his enthusiasm as a late comer wanting to make a mark in this new movement. How far did he go in testing the boundaries of reality in his one-upmanship with the apostles? Buddha, the great exponent of non-violence, died after eating poisoned meat given by a woman. And can death, disease and old age ever be hidden so well from a person that he is shocked into a life of austerity on seeing it for the first time? Much of what is in the Bhagavat Geetha, given out by Krishna, are extrapolations by later translators. Which part is his? There are many people who swear by the Geetha and don’t know which part they swear by. It is stupid of atheists to place their belief on the non-existent of God based on the beliefs of some religious sects.
No-one has ever heard of an atheist becoming a martyr because of his beliefs, or his disbelief. To what extent is the atheist willing to test their belief in the non-existent of God? Is he willing to die for them? What is the basis of his belief? His belief – see, he has a belief too. If God is extra-sensory, why does he base his belief in the non-existence of God on the senses? The atheist is ill-advised because he is placing his trust on his senses which are fallible – senility and insanity are facts of life.
God has never failed a test – people have failed to test him, that is all. Practitioners of religions have been tested. Saints have come about because they were tested severely in their faith and trust in God. I throw my mind back and cannot see a single case in the history of man which God was tested. Can you?
I asked this question to Neil Sedera the second time I met him and he said: “God is evidenced in everything, even in the good and the bad. You have to separate him from everything to test him. The funny thing is that once you separate him, there is no need to test him. You have passed the test and he becomes yours”.
Nalin Sedera, who until 2018, had lived an anonymous life in Colombo, Sri Lanka, had an answer to every one of my questions. Now he was 53, a lawyer who had become an expert on the consciousness.
I first met Sedera in the monsoon of 2018. He and I shared the same birth year. We were introduced by a mutual friend. Sedera was slim and trim and looked 10 years younger than I did. We were 48 when we first met.
The first meeting was short. We met in our mutual friend’s apartment in a little town called Puttaparthi, in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India. The dingy, one-bedroom apartment was being pelted by monsoon rains and Sedera had come in wet and looking slightly bedraggled.
His hair, jet black, was plastered to his skull. The forehead was set high and the nose flared out to indicate a physical man. He was not very tall. He was finely put together, well-packed but slim. It was his eyes that grabbed my attention. Sage’s eyes. Compassionate, alert and knowledgeable. The eyebrows were an anomaly – it seemed to be someone else’s. Well-shaped and fine, it did not belong to the almost rustic face.
When he looked at me intently, I knew I was in the presence of someone not to be trifled with. It was nothing apparent, just that his mien called for seriousness on the part of any one interacting with him. Yet, he had a ready smile, although it seemed tinged with genuine sadness. Definitely a compassionate man.
In my time as a journalist before the transformation, I have had to stare down quite a few determined men, some even with evil intent in their mind. While always preserving an outward calm, most of those looks have chilled me to the bone. I never could believe that there are men who could have such intensity, such coldness in them.
Sedera’s eyes had the same intensity, but without the chill. Neither did he have a burning sort of gaze that would have denoted an obsession or a passion.
It was almost a distracted gaze - its intensity directed inward. It was as if he knew me already and what I was telling him about me was old data that he was listening to because he respected me, and loved me.
Yes, love. A kind love that seemed to pour out of his pores. It was almost tangible. He made me feel warm. Not tingly warmth but a relaxed warmth – something you get out of a glowing fire on a chilly evening. This feeling just washed over me in little waves, as if large waves were something I could not have handled.
His handshake was limp. He just placed his work-hardened hands into mine and left it there for me to shake it. I had automatically offered my hand on being introduced to him. Handshakes were definitely something he did not like doing. He did it out of respect for me. I knew this within seconds of taking his hand in mine.
It was as if all these thoughts were being transmitted to me. It was as if benevolent thoughts were seeping out of his mind and making their way into mine. Smoothly; as if respecting my right to stop his thoughts from coming into my mind. With a slight hesitation in case my mind rejected those thoughts. We talked but I cannot remember much of what we talked about. My mind was not in a processing mode. It was just in an accepting mode. And his thoughts came flitting through. Nice thoughts. Thoughts of friendship, goodness, loyalty, duty, love and peace.
For the first time in my life, after half a century of searching, I had met a good man. A pure man with a pure mind and a loving heart. I felt fulfilled. I thought the purpose of my life had been achieved. How wrong I was. But I did not know until five years later.
Prologue
My method is to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, then say it with the utmost levity – George Bernard Shaw
Why doesn’t God clean up the mess that is this world? This question has been asked so many times that I think it has become trite enough to be slotted to the back of mankind’s psyche. The question has swathed out enough of mankind generation after generation into that unanchored group called atheists. Because man has made the mistake of putting a form to God, and that form may not be agreeable to all, atheists take up minds against God and everything connected to God.
And religiously-inclined people have done nothing to change the mind of these so-called atheists. On the contrary, their very behaviour - their acting at being pious - has turned off even people who are willing to give God half a chance. For being religious is the stupidest thing a man could be. It is an unnatural state for a human to be in. It is a contrived state, brought about by the mind twisting certain facts, certain fiction and a whole lot of imagination into a creed that a child would reject out of hand. Yet, grown-ups have died for these creeds, shedding blood like water.
Being religious is contraction – it tries to project God as a figment of imagination, the imagination belonging to someone who has had a vision of God and most probably does a bad job of putting out that vision to other people. His enthusiasm seems far greater than his ability to tell people what God is. Then the adherents of that form force people to worship that figment of God that they think is right. If a god that could be captured in just one form, that god is a very limited god indeed. All names and forms are his. To deride one and worship another is the greatest sin, if there is something called sin.
A man going to war for God is to be pitied, and kicked on the backside. No one can say they have fought for God – they have only fought for what they think represents God – Jerusalem, the Kabba, the Babri Masjid, the Ayodhya temple. A god that wants one people to fight another people is a disaster of a god. Worshippers of such gods are the true heathens and pagans. The best Christian, the best Muslim, the best Hindu has been the one who forgot everything and concentrated in adoring the object of their adoration without saying a single word to hurt another human. All the rest have been men and women with a motive behind their belief, tainted by some human emotion like greed or revenge.
Religion limits God and any religion that limits God, or the abilities of God, is a sham. And to ask people to blindly follow God is to insult their intelligence. God does not want faith, blind or otherwise, but trust. And trust can only be given after a thorough testing, a rational testing. This is where all religions have failed for the stupid atheist.
I call him stupid because he wants to test figments of imagination while God looms in his face, and around it and inside his head. To test Christ, to test Krishna, to test Buddha – how is it possible? They existed millennia ago. What they were in actuality and what they became after several generations had spin-doctored their story is the cause of much strife in this world.
Christ did not want to start a sect – Paul did that in his enthusiasm as a late comer wanting to make a mark in this new movement. How far did he go in testing the boundaries of reality in his one-upmanship with the apostles? Buddha, the great exponent of non-violence, died after eating poisoned meat given by a woman. And can death, disease and old age ever be hidden so well from a person that he is shocked into a life of austerity on seeing it for the first time? Much of what is in the Bhagavat Geetha, given out by Krishna, are extrapolations by later translators. Which part is his? There are many people who swear by the Geetha and don’t know which part they swear by. It is stupid of atheists to place their belief on the non-existent of God based on the beliefs of some religious sects.
No-one has ever heard of an atheist becoming a martyr because of his beliefs, or his disbelief. To what extent is the atheist willing to test their belief in the non-existent of God? Is he willing to die for them? What is the basis of his belief? His belief – see, he has a belief too. If God is extra-sensory, why does he base his belief in the non-existence of God on the senses? The atheist is ill-advised because he is placing his trust on his senses which are fallible – senility and insanity are facts of life.
God has never failed a test – people have failed to test him, that is all. Practitioners of religions have been tested. Saints have come about because they were tested severely in their faith and trust in God. I throw my mind back and cannot see a single case in the history of man which God was tested. Can you?
I asked this question to Neil Sedera the second time I met him and he said: “God is evidenced in everything, even in the good and the bad. You have to separate him from everything to test him. The funny thing is that once you separate him, there is no need to test him. You have passed the test and he becomes yours”.
Nalin Sedera, who until 2018, had lived an anonymous life in Colombo, Sri Lanka, had an answer to every one of my questions. Now he was 53, a lawyer who had become an expert on the consciousness.
I first met Sedera in the monsoon of 2018. He and I shared the same birth year. We were introduced by a mutual friend. Sedera was slim and trim and looked 10 years younger than I did. We were 48 when we first met.
The first meeting was short. We met in our mutual friend’s apartment in a little town called Puttaparthi, in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India. The dingy, one-bedroom apartment was being pelted by monsoon rains and Sedera had come in wet and looking slightly bedraggled.
His hair, jet black, was plastered to his skull. The forehead was set high and the nose flared out to indicate a physical man. He was not very tall. He was finely put together, well-packed but slim. It was his eyes that grabbed my attention. Sage’s eyes. Compassionate, alert and knowledgeable. The eyebrows were an anomaly – it seemed to be someone else’s. Well-shaped and fine, it did not belong to the almost rustic face.
When he looked at me intently, I knew I was in the presence of someone not to be trifled with. It was nothing apparent, just that his mien called for seriousness on the part of any one interacting with him. Yet, he had a ready smile, although it seemed tinged with genuine sadness. Definitely a compassionate man.
In my time as a journalist before the transformation, I have had to stare down quite a few determined men, some even with evil intent in their mind. While always preserving an outward calm, most of those looks have chilled me to the bone. I never could believe that there are men who could have such intensity, such coldness in them.
Sedera’s eyes had the same intensity, but without the chill. Neither did he have a burning sort of gaze that would have denoted an obsession or a passion.
It was almost a distracted gaze - its intensity directed inward. It was as if he knew me already and what I was telling him about me was old data that he was listening to because he respected me, and loved me.
Yes, love. A kind love that seemed to pour out of his pores. It was almost tangible. He made me feel warm. Not tingly warmth but a relaxed warmth – something you get out of a glowing fire on a chilly evening. This feeling just washed over me in little waves, as if large waves were something I could not have handled.
His handshake was limp. He just placed his work-hardened hands into mine and left it there for me to shake it. I had automatically offered my hand on being introduced to him. Handshakes were definitely something he did not like doing. He did it out of respect for me. I knew this within seconds of taking his hand in mine.
It was as if all these thoughts were being transmitted to me. It was as if benevolent thoughts were seeping out of his mind and making their way into mine. Smoothly; as if respecting my right to stop his thoughts from coming into my mind. With a slight hesitation in case my mind rejected those thoughts. We talked but I cannot remember much of what we talked about. My mind was not in a processing mode. It was just in an accepting mode. And his thoughts came flitting through. Nice thoughts. Thoughts of friendship, goodness, loyalty, duty, love and peace.
For the first time in my life, after half a century of searching, I had met a good man. A pure man with a pure mind and a loving heart. I felt fulfilled. I thought the purpose of my life had been achieved. How wrong I was. But I did not know until five years later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)