The above two statements represent the metaphysical basis of all Indian thought. Some days back I found myself looking at the Bhagwad Gita and wondering whether it is really as divine as it is claimed to be. I had concluded that, like the Quran and the Bible, the Bhagwat Gita was a book written around 200 yrs ago (may be even more) and finding it relevant to our lives today, and that too in totality, would be too much to ask for. There will always be parts in it which you will not agree with.
An example of the forms of government might be appropriate here. Democracy, communism, dictatorship, theocracy or monarchy are all different forms of government, each with its own set of pros and cons. Another relevant conflict is the one between capitalism and socialism and which one is a better society. I think this conflict should be resolved on a case by case basis. Different systems suit different countries. Different systems suit the same country at different times. Different systems suit different people in the same country at the same time. And we can go on endlessly. Hence, it would be futile to argue that one system is exclusively and in totality suitable for a group of people would be inappropriate. Hence I guess, most democratic countries have two parties: a left leaning party and a right leaning party.
So now we again find ourselves in ambiguity, wherein there is no single magic pill for the whole world. This is why the Vedantic interpretation of the Bhagwad Gita is better. It does not challenge this ambiguity. It tries to work around it. I am sure similar attempts have been made regarding the interpretation of the Bible and the Quran, but they find themselves hard to present as a philosophy for today times, because of the absoluteness and exclusiveness of truth that these books propagate. But more importantly they challenge and contradict that system of belief and knowledge which is widely accepted today as truth –SCIENCE.
This is precisely why the two statements succeed. They present a construction of the world that does not challenge this ambiguity. Moreover, they provide a metaphysical basis to derive our philosophy from. And most importantly they do not contradict science. All they tell you is that everything is God, or nature, or universe, or whatever you may call it. It brushes aside the “theism vs. atheism vs. agnosticism” debate by not necessitating the existence of a conscious God or Creator, a belief which goes against the objective evidence based understanding of the world that is science.
Thus if everything is God, so are you. That you see as distinct from you is God too. Hence ‘you’ and ‘that’ is same. Hence You are That (TAT TVAMASI) and You are God (AHAM BRAHMASMI).
The ‘big bang theory’ (not the TV program) is today considered, by most scientists, to be the best cosmological model of the evolution of the universe. If it were to be believed, then everything must have originated from one source. If that source itself became the universe, the creator and the creation are same. Everything that we see around is that creation, and also the creator. Thus we all are the creation and hence the creator too. We all are God. We all are different manifestations of God.
The concept of the big bang and the universe’s evolution are recent additions to human knowledge. Vedanta had a similar concept which it explained with the dream analogy. It can still be used to explain to people who are not quite acquainted with science. Let us take an example of a dream. One night I dream that I am walking in a garden. Now the garden is not separate from me. It can not exist without my mind. The kids playing in the garden, the trees, the swings, the grass, the birds the couple walking hand in hand, everything is me. If I dream that I am speaking to people, the people are me. Though I see everything distinct from me in my dream, it is still me.
Thus, I am both the creation and the creator. At least a part of it. Is there a conscious God that listens to us? May be there is. We try hard, but there are still many manifestations of the universe we are ignorant about. So maybe, one of these manifestations is a conscious God. I think it is all based on personal need and experience. If you have experienced a conscious God and you need this belief of a conscious God, then this conscious God exists for you. If not, then it doesn’t.
I have experienced a conscious God in my own way, and it can be argued against. But I believe in my experience. And I am not ashamed to say that I need this belief. I also have been through a phase where I have felt the need for this belief but I did not have an experience to support this belief. I being a firm believer of evidence based understanding, rather than solely faith based understanding, found myself incapable of just believing. But now I have both.
Hence, the Vedantic concept is the most conducive for me. It neither contradicts my belief in a conscious God, nor does it challenge my belief in science. I guess at some point in life one has to make a choice on which philosophy to follow. Some use tradition to make that decision, while some reason and/or emotion. My choice is partly based on tradition (being from
Indian scriptures are massive pieces of literature and people over the years have lent their own interpretations of them. I think that’s why a basis in some philosophical inclination is necessary to begin the study of scriptures, if one choses to do so. Because it is these mental inclinations which determine our understanding of these scriptures, or for that matter the whole world. Hence a background of Vedantic way of thinking is important for me before I proceed to study any of our scriptures. I don’t think though that I will really study many of these scriptures in detail. It would be futile to study ancient books, when there is new knowledge being developed everyday. But I will definitely try to adopt the Vedantic approach in my life. Because I am made that way.
