The Song of Creation
One of the meanings associated with the word "Design" is ( see Marriam-Webster )
"a deliberate undercover project or scheme : PLOT b plural : aggressive or evil intent"
No wonder the whole idea of Intelligent Design is an evil scheme to derail rationality.
I have wondered sometimes why this debate does not surface in India ; the premise being moronity is ubiquitous. While India is full of regilious dimwits ( like the rest of the world ), they somehow do not invoke the creationist ideas. My search led me to Hindu Song of Creation in Rig Veda; one of the four ancient religious texts in Hinduism. Although Rig Veda has many things terribly wrong, the song of creation truly represents the inner conflicts of an intelligent mind. A rough Hindi translation appeared as the title song of a very popular TV serial called "Bharat Ek Khoj" by Shyam Benegal . Here is the hindi text and it's english translation of the title song.
Srushtee se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin
There was neither non-existence nor existence before creation
Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhin nahin thaa
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond,
chhipaa thaa kyaa kahaan, kisne dekhaa thaa us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the begining, with no distinguishing sign all this was water
Shushtee kaa kaun hain kartaa, Kartaa hain yeh vaa akartaa
Who is the creator of this Universe? Or is there one?
Oonche aasmaan mein rahtaa Sadaaa adhyaksh banaa rahtaa
He who lives in Heaven as President
Wohin sach much mein jaantaa..Yaa nahin bhi jaanataa
does He know everything? Maybe He does not ?
Hain kisi ko nahin pataa Nahin pataa
no one has an aswer to this question
A translation of the Rig Veda available in "The Rig Vega" by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty. Here is the song of creation copied from the book :
There was neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water, bottomless - deep?
There was neither death nor immortality then. There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day. That one breathed, windless, by its own impulse. Other than that there was nothing beyond.
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning; with no distinguishing sign, all this was water. The life force that was covered with emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat.
Desire came upon that one in the beginning; that was the first seed of mind. Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom found the bond of existence in non-existence.
Their cord was extended across. Was there below? Was there above? There were seed-placers; there were powers. There was impulse beneath; there was giving-forth above.
Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whence this creation has arisen perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows or perhaps he does not know.
These lines from the Veda were a refreshing change. The text in bold really captures my inquiries. As an agnostic ( tending towards aethist) I find it very difficult when most religious texts conviniently fail to address my concerns and fail to admit that what they are presenting is an opinion and there is a possibility that they could be wrong.
24 comments:
Rig Veda has some things terribly wrong? Such as?
Here is one of the most offensive examples.
"The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaisya, from his feet the Sudra was produced."
This line is taken from the 10th book of the Rig Veda. The Veda not only provides a divine sanction to the system, it actually symbolically places the Sudra at the bottom of the human race.
People regard Gita as a great book because it actually gives other castes (except for the Sudra) a chance to attain moksha , although the Brahmin is still on the top of the hierarchy.
It is only with Buddhism that everybody got a chance to attain moksha.
The poor Sudra had to wait for many centuries. Maybe s/he is still waiting in many parts of India.
I am glad you asked.
All it points out is the distribution of labor in society. Are you suggesting the head=arm=leg? That's nothing short of Communism.
IMHO the Rigveda and other texts composed in that period were pure in intention. After all, how far would you get without your feet? It's the feet of the Lord that people worship.
Somehow, the message has been twisted by later generations, and evolved into the distasteful phenomenon of today.
I would like to believe that the Rigveda is beyond reproach. People, unfortunately, are not.
Hmm interesting though not convincing.
What is so sacrosanct about the Veda? Why should it be beyond reproach? As a document of spritual inquiry written a few thousand years back, it is fairly interesting, but by today's standards it is rather absurd. Isn't the theory that all humans were formed from the different parts of a divine body ridiculous when the very question of the existence of the divine body has not been settled ? Isn't the whole idea of worshiping all natural forces like fire, water, sky, air and earth ( leading to a total of 330,000 Gods ) stretching things a bit too far ?
The Vedas are important as a historical texts for knowing the religious and philosophical thinking prevailing a few thousand years back, but to think that they are beyond reproach is rather naive.
It is because this attitude of not questioning religious texts that we see such religious fundamentalism today making me wonder if God is the root of all evil.
I am sure all religious texts were pure in intention. Most of them are outdated though. They were profound theories of their times. I do not see why with the increase in human knowledge, those theories should not be questioned and revised ?
It is (or should be) beyond reproach, because that was the original purpose of organized religion as we know it - a belief structure that offered people hope, among other things. In 1500BC, after a day of hard labor, don't you think the humble and worthy kisaan would like to believe that there was a method to his madness? Some purpose to his existence?
It is (or should be) beyond reproach because it was in all probability written by a group of educated thinkers, not a roadside ruffian with a death wish - the sheer depth of thought and language used is proof of that. People don't just dream up concepts like infinity and nothingness just like that. Those can get pretty scary for the lay thinker who's afraid of fire! (I'm saying this to get some perspective into the lives of the average Vedic Age person).
Of course one should question religious texts. All I'm saying is let's not be so quick to ascribe blame to a text written 2000 years ago, for today's social ills that are essentially created by us. I don't remember who said this, but to misquote: "my only problem with God is what gets carried out in His name."
IMHO the Vedic texts are the least outdated among the existing religious texts. It provides scope for the theory of evolution (dasha avatar), and yet manages to assert the existence of the atma and divine spirit. It may be easy to dismiss the latter as the delusions of people high on bhaang, but it exists. It is at least what is responsible for the remaining good there is in this world.
I have difficulty agreeing with the following
"Some purpose to his existence?"
Ah I wish there were a purpose and that the whole story about recycling of atma, or that of day of judgement were right; I doubt they are. The lay man does not really need a God. A huge population is China and Japan do not believe in God and are doing just fine.
"It is (or should be) beyond reproach because it was in all probability written by a group of educated thinkers, "
Yes it was proabably written by educated thinkers 2000 years back and I am demanding revision by educated thinkers of our times who ( assuming that thinkers of both times are equal in intellect ) have the benefit of 2000 years of scientific knowledge and other philosophical ideas.
"IMHO the Vedic texts are the least outdated among the existing religious texts."
The follower of each religion claiming the above about their religious texts leads to a philosophical deadlock which is otherwise called Fundamentalism.
1) Difficulty in agreement does not per se imply lack of it.
2) Who was the last dead person to submit to a ToI-let interview? Who's to say what really happens when a person's bodily functions cease? The truth is, we just don't know. Until then, we have to make do with what we have. If believing in concepts like the atma helps some people live life well, then more strength to them.
3) I see no philosophical deadlock. Fundamentalism only arises when you refuse to see the point of view of the follower of another faith. Personally speaking, I find it interesting that the Great Deluge from the Bible runs parallel to the concept in the Hindu puranas.
Meanwhile, you appear to agree that the Rig Veda does have some content that is consistent with your own belief structure, in opposition to other extant (pseudo)theories. Does that not make you a Fundamentalist?
Satya,
China, OK (although they do have their up and coming version of the Church). But Japan? Surely not?
You started blogging quite some time ago... not as many posts as I'd expect from an self-righteous, strongly-opinionated GCL like you... :D
Percy: Please tell me that you were not the one arguing with me anonymously. I was happy under the impression that people who do not know me are reading these posts. The joy that comes from the knowledge that someone (outside your friend circle) is reading your blogs and bothering to comment is about the same as a paper citation. Very narcissist indeed.
Japan is pretty high up there
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
I did not know this statistics before quoting Japan; it was quoted (without verification) out of a discussion I had sometime back with a group of informed friends.
About the lack of posts on my blog. I do not usually have time in such abundance as I have now. I write a couple of posts after a paper deadline. Haan haan mai maggu hoon!!!.
a) Why would I? We have enough theological discussions on a1top.
b) Even if I did, why would I give up credit for such a lucid, well thought-out argument?
did you remember the lyrics from the song or do you have a recording/MP3?
Do let me know if there is any place i can buy/download that...
If google cannot answer it, then does the question exist ?
So, let me pay this guy in google money (AKA pagerank).
Bharat Ek Khoj
Thanks for the Google dough. At a below-average 3 my blog needs some more links.
The basic problem with religious texts is that they were meant for a different era and different age. In the centuries that passed in the interim, the basic nature of the human being has also evolved (for better or for the worse) and trying to forcibly implement obsolete practices in the name of religion is making the world a dangerous place to live in. The problem with us is that we tend to think of our ancestors as all-knowing and all-understanding people and believe that their words are the truth and the ultimate truth and do not dare to deviate from that. The vedas do answer many of our unanswered queries. But that is what religion is supposed to do. Tell man what he doesn’t already know of. But since human knowledge in areas previously dark and un-understood has increased many fold, implying the age old logic to modern day problems may not work out fine. If I remember right, caste in the early Vedic era was not determined by birth but by occupation. But then again, occupation with time tends to be hereditary. But this is changing in today’s mobile world.
Issues like evolution, abortion, and homosexuality will never be big in India as long as there is a Hindu majority. This is because of the fundamental differences between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. The religions of the Book are about absolute right and wrong and more inclined toward defining morality with regards to society as a whole, and are thus prone to breed more fundamentalists . The Dharmic religions on the other hand, are about an individual's journey toward self-realization and take less absolute positions on many issues. Interestingly, this is in contrast to American society's emphasis on the individual's happiness as opposed to Indian society's emphasis on harmony in the family/community.
Satya,
[Your name is somewhat ironic, in this case. I'm sure that you are aware that 'Sathya' is 'Truth,' with a CAPITAL 'T,' meaning the ultimate reality. It is funny that you question your namesake, but it is all part of the unfolding.]
The path of Jnana yoga (yoga of knowledge/intellect/wisdom) is said to be the hardest path, with many pitfalls and obstacles.
Why would you, then, presume that just because you have a developed intellect, you can jump to the head of the pack and suddenly gain insight into spiritual truths with the tool that, while the sharpest, is considered to be the most difficult to wield?
One of the consequences of our developed intellect is that we have confused cause and effect, and often believe that 'understanding' the science of something, de mystifies it.
I recently heard of a place somewhere in the desert of Kazakstan where the rocks appear to be humming. It has long been considered a sacred place by the locals. Scientists came in and learned that because of the shape of the rocks, when the wind blew, it created a vibration, and that was the sound that was being heard. Suddenly, the place is not sacred because science has 'explained' how this happens.
But what if the science is only the 'HOW' of the question, and not the 'WHY.'
We live in a physical universe, with laws and rules. Is it inconceivable that the divine would use these same rules to inspire awe and reverence in us?
One of the major teachings of the Vedas and the Gita is that the divine does not exist outside of us, or in particular actions, places or times. It is all around us all the time in the ordinary experiences that we have. In fact, we OURSELVES are divine!
In that way, understanding how something happens in a scientific sense does not detract from the fact that whatever it is, is already a divine occurrence.
Dr. Nick Riviera -- funny pseudonym:)
" This is because of the fundamental differences between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. The religions of the Book are about absolute right and wrong and more inclined toward defining morality with regards to society as a whole, and are thus prone to breed more fundamentalists ."
I think thats a good argument. But as you pointed out, even though the definition of morality is more strict in say Christianity than in Hinduism, it does not necessarily reflect in the society (i.e. Indians probably have a much strict defintion of morality than say Europeans and Americans ).
It is because of this reason, I think that
when the issue of homosexuality comes up in India, there will be quite a big debate.
The debate on abortion would probably not catch up considering the number of female infanticide in India. (For example, 22% of female foetus is aborted in Punjab). When such a large fraction of the society condones the act, there is no space for debate.
On the other hand people do not care about evolution because it does not conflict with any religious beliefs.
Hello Anonymous,
"It is funny that you question your namesake, but it is all part of the unfolding."
Satya means Truth. Of course one can extend its meaning to include the Ultimate Truth (presumably you are refering to God). I can assure you that my parents did not even bother asking me before assigning a name. When I am not even responsible for my name, why would I bother defending what it stands for.
Your line of argument is interesting.
First a claim is made that Jnana yoga is the hardest path -- this is presumably quoted from vedas etc ?
Next, relying on the above claim, a defense is made in support of the vedas, and God.
Now the claim is made assuming vedas are correct, and then it is used to "prove" that they are. But once you start by assuming something is correct, no further "proof" is necessary for its "correctness".
The other line in your argument that I have heard several times and it still makes me uncomfortable is the following
"But what if the science is only the 'HOW' of the question, and not the 'WHY.' "
Yes, there is a limit to what we can observe and deduct. Science tries to broaden that limit, and scientists stop talking when they am not sure. That explains why science can only answer "HOW".
My problem with religion is precisely this. It answers everything -- things much beyond human comprehension. And more importantly it provides me with no tools to verify the answers.
A few thousand years back, we did not even know as my "HOWS" that we do today, but it is interesting that all the "WHYs" were answered by ALL religions in this world in as many different ways.
The reason I liked those lines from Rig Veda was because it is so rare for religious text to admit that they don't know what they are talking about.
Truth is Truth, Satya. If you prefer to view the Universe as an immense field of energy, which manifests in varying forms that rise and fall with the passage of time, but ultimately all composed of the same basic energy, then that is Truth. That 'Truth' can be as spiritial as any other, because it touches at the essence, the heart of the world that we see and experience around us. It is all energy. It may appear in infinite forms, some conscious, others not, some may last for a long time, and others may exist only for a moment, but ultimately all forms are made of this same 'substance.' Even Science will tell you- though perhaps not explicitly- that the fundamental truth of the universe is Oneness.
And then there is the mind. Yes, the mind is composed of this same oneness, but it is through the mind that we perceive Separateness.
This is not taken from any religious or spiritual text- this is something that can be observed directly if you take time to witness your mind. You can see that your mind draws up limits, boundaries, categories- good, bad, right wrong. In rare moments of stillness you can experience the world without these delimitations- PURE BEING.
All of this may sound like it came from a text, but the truth is that it came from experience first, and then was set down (Actually, first memorized and passed on orally for a long time before being written).
Because of this dual nature of the mind, it is extremely difficult to use it to percieve oneness. The mind has its uses, but Spiritual seeking is something that is better undertaken without it.
This is difficult for many who have come to worship the mind because of its ability to discern, calculate and produce. But what they do not realize is that if they were to surrender the mind (which is not the essence of who they are) for a few moments, they would have the 'proof' and direct experience that they need to believe that Divinity exists.
Again, not from a text. From direct experience.
You say you were given no tools? You have the great fortune of being of a lineage that actually encourages people to have direct experience of the divine, and has vast resources of Tools available for the people- yoga and meditation exist in so many variations that one is bound to find a form that suits their temperament and level of experience. There is no way for you to say that you have been given no tools. You have only to try to use them.
Satya, you are exactly where you need to be. Continue to be a skeptic- that may be what your Dharma is in this life. Don't let anyone tell you that you're not perfect just the way that you are- because you are!!!
I only share what I have experienced with you because you seem to be asking, not because I think that it is 'wrong' for you to think the way that you do.
A woman Saint that I know once said 'live from your experience.' That was all I needed to hear from her in order to know that wherever we are in our lives, whatever is true for us in that moment- is perfect.
Thank you for engaging me. Good luck in your inquiry!
Visuddha
Have you read "Code Named God"?
If not, read it. You'd enjoy it and it may get you to probe even more.
And I enjoyed reading this discussion as well. I agree with Visuddha's view that in most cases the problem is with the interpretation of the text, rather than the text itself.
Incidentally, I once met this chap working with Intel who travelled to the Uttaranchal Himalayas to learn Vedic Sanskrit so that he could read the original texts of our scriptures. You may also enjoy it.
Cant see a perfect comment than Visudha !! good luck -
To Satya,
You claimed that Indians have stricter morality than Europeans and Americans. You are just ignorant of history. This acceptance of 'free love' and other immorality is just a recent phenomenon, say 100 years old and it proliferated during the 50s and the 60s because, the contemporary generation of that time rebelled against authority and everything. Swami Vivekanda is one regarded in high esteem among Indians. He was a tantric, which means he used sexual copulation as a means to attain 'moksha'. But, this path did not become popular because the moral climate at that time still was based on the Bible. But, in the 60s, Osho came up with the same concept and he became immensely popular. This is because, the moral climate in the West at Osho's time was different and was already decadent.
Indians on the other hand are more of hypocrites. All the present immorality of the West is present here too, but not outspoken. Homosexuality in India? You might not know this, but homosexuality has always existed in idolatrous communities throughout the world and this land is filled with idolatrous communities and it has always existed. Though, these days, it is not conspicuous, largely due the influence of the British and the West in good way, but this is being replaced by the decadency of the West. You all live in the West, without even knowing and understanding the history of the Western civilization because you are not seeking any truth. You just are in the West for the comforts and money. You could not make your own land the same way because your world view does not allow for it. The result of your world view is what you see in India. And, morality is a very important matter and I suppose you do not think the West would have gotten to where they are now, if their fathers too had the same standards as the present generation.
Hi Anonymous,
Quoting from your comment
"You claimed that Indians have stricter morality than Europeans and Americans."
Now quoting from the my original post
"I have wondered sometimes why this debate does not surface in India ; the premise being moronity is ubiquitous."
I do not claim Indians have stricter morality. In fact, on the question of morality, you might want to read my other post
http://spmallick.blogspot.com/2005/09/morality-and-convinience.html
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Ruth
http://besttoddler.com
It is really unfortunate that highly educated people read a few books or quotes from here and there and think they understand the Vedas and begin to make comments about its veracity and sanctity. These scriptures are not a bed-time story. Without an understanding of the self, one's own mind, without experiencing the stillness of thought, one can easily get into a concept about them. This misunderstanding is not new.
Post a Comment