Would You Die for a "Philosophy"?

By way of an introduction to this post I present the conclusion first:

In Conclusion

After writing this post I almost trashed it. All these words and quibbles and insight and ignorance going round and round.  It felt more and more like a waste of time and effort.  Then I happened upon some interesting words by Paul Lynch in the comments of a post on the Sweep the Dust, Push the Dirt blog. (Paul keeps his own blog at Zen Mirror) . Among other pertinent things he said “…all of our constructs are poor substitutions for reality.”

So here I’ve been hacking away on and off for a couple of days on this real fancy construction of a blog post, adorning it with some amount of energetic and wordy decoration yet knowing full well it will never adequately represent the reality of Buddhism, secular culture or my thoughts on these topics.

So there is some choice to be made with these things. As it happens something else occurred which is spurring my choice to put this on the blog anyway. In the past week I’ve been writing comments on a couple of well known blogs and self-identifying as a “religious” Buddhist. That’s the first time I’ve come out with it plainly. Coincidentally today, 2 people have stricken me from their blog-rolls and 2 have dropped me as Facebook friends. (There is a total of 3 people there-all 3 are secularists) Apparently my religious declaration didn’t go down too well with them.  I did not attack a secular view of Buddhism but attempted to write from a religious (not fundamentalist) position. It seems that to do so, especially if you are not a monk, nun, priest or teacher is equated with some sort of coercion into religion.

There are a lot of demands from the secular Buddhist crowd to be heard, acknowledged and validated in their opinions of Buddhism. Many of these opinions are not the result of studying Buddhism in either monastic situations or in academic situations. And often not even with any sort of teacher or Sangha. What is being asked is a validation of an invented form of what Buddhism “ought to be according to me”. And when immediate validation is withheld or consideration of the position is not whole-hearted a reaction ensues. Just to put forward an openly religious opinion, not expecting agreement or even acknowledgement seems to threaten some people.(I am reminded of a short post on the Ramblings of a Monk blog called Disagreeing or not understanding (knowing))

Now it doesn’t really matter to me what lists I am on. It makes little difference to what is written here or how I live. It does matter to me that nice people would withdraw from a position they either don’t understand or apparently don’t agree with. To me that signals fear or dis-ease, dis-comfort and yes suffering.   It is not as simple as East and West or tradition and modern or progressive and traditional or race or culture. The world views of the secular and the religious Buddhists are somewhat different. Having been raised in a secular society and having studied Buddhism in both secular (academic) and religious contexts and presently living in a religious culture has formed my opinions.  Having the benefit of both perspectives gives some justification for the analysis of this question.

Everyone’s got to decide this one for themselves. One can’t just up and switch world views like changing hats. It takes a lot of work to see another’s perspective. It takes no effort at all to shut people down just because you think you may not like their point of view. Just because I’ve chosen to engage Buddhism from a religious perspective does not mean I don’t understand secular perspectives.  It doesn’t necessarily mean I need my perspective “stretched” or that I am in the throes of some kind of “brainwashed” cult-like delusion.  And especially it doesn’t mean I don’t know the difference between reality and it’s representations. Yeah I get it-the finger and the moon.

All told Buddhism represents Buddhism. It is what it is. It doesn’t need to be a science, philosophy, psychology or even a religion. It is itself just like the rest of reality.

So on to the original post….

.

Would You Die for a “Philosophy?”

Introduction

On numerous blogs there are discussions about the religion of Buddhism. Some want to call it a philosophy and others see it as a form of self-help psychology and still others call it a contemplative science.  Buddhism is a big thing. It’s self-stated purpose is one of transformation and liberation. This accords with purpose in most other religions even if it does not accord in terms of specific methodology,doctrine or theology in all ways to all other religions. This rather functionalist view relies on two questions. What does it do? What are it’s ends?

At the Tricycle blog the question was asked “Is Buddhism A Religion?” and within that post the additional question was posed  “And Does it Really Matter?”

Personally it doesn’t matter to me what people call it. But my personal viewpoint is not what is primarily at stake. The question of “Does It Really Matter?” ties in a lot of related and much bigger issues.

There is currently a lot of effort expended to look at Buddhism through the lens of secularity and science.  The purpose here is to look at the attempts of scientific society, modern society, Western society, secular society (choose your term) to remove elements of Buddhism and Buddhism itself from the religious and transplant it into the secular. Let’s examine some of the underlying assumptions in this effort and bring forward some arguments as to the potential success of the endeavor. And finally I want to answer the question posed “And Does it Really Matter?”

Religion or Not? Initial Position

Does it come down to the old science vs. religion argument?  That is the standard viewpoint and not one I want to take up here in too much depth. It becomes something like a contest with taunts “My science is better than your religion.” or “My religion is bigger than your science.” And the measures used by either side differ in quality. For science these measures include rationality, provability, measurability and replicability and other objective criteria. For religion they include faith, devotion, behavior, effectiveness, transformation and other subjective criteria.  There are possibly some scales in terms of social science and other disciplines that could be utilized to measure the socio-cultural impacts of religions on societies but these in turn generally rely on the subjective reports of individuals. Consider the Gross National Happiness factor in Bhutan. (Gross National Happiness: Towards Buddhist Economics from the New Economics Foundation is one related examination, as is Gross National Happiness and altruistic economics from the Global Ideas Bank)

Another of the major differences between science and Buddhism is a matter of ends. Ultimately the activity of science has no end. In dictionary definitions of science we find it to mean “a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research” and “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”  But even amongst scientists themselves there is controversy over definitions such as are explicated in this editorial from The Journal of Theoretics. The author posits this as a definition of Science: “the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part.”  This rather broad and vague definition could then include just about any field of study including theology, philosophy or even practices like poetry and Buddhism. Clearly it is quite untenable.

Science is about hypothesis and provability of objective reality. Science is specific to the nature of the universe. Science deals with knowledge. It’s purpose is to understand.

Buddhism is about a defined goal-the eradication of suffering, also known as enlightenment. [Even though Zen posits the paradox of relinquishing goals-"Stop seeking, start finding"  or leaving words and even "religion" behind]  Buddhism is specific to individuals even if it is practiced communally.  Buddhism deals with the nature and quality of being and inter-being and by that it becomes closer to the delineated fields of philosophy and psychology but not identical to them. It’s purpose is individual transformation.

There are plenty of definitions of religion too that are as disputed as definitions of science. The typical definition often looks at a set of behaviors such as ritual, prayer, specific place and dress.   These however are lists of characteristics, circumstantial evidence if you will. The list goes on to another set, this time of beliefs. These include Metaphysical or Supernatural or Supramundane Reality, faith, doctrine, salvation, reward.  These come closer to the mark. They deal with motivation.

Often these sets of characteristics are grouped by function.  One such grouping calls them dimensions. The seven dimensions are: 1. practical/ritual; 2. experiential/emotional; 3. narrative/mythic; 4. doctrinal/philosophical; 5. ethical/legal; 6. social/institutional; and, 7. material. The emphasis on each of the dimensions varies according to each instance of religious activity.  These kinds of groupings may present an opportunity to see why from the secular viewpoint Religion has become such a dirty word.

If one has been exposed to a culture who’s dominant religion strongly emphasizes the ethical/legal and social/institutional style all religion would be viewed from this skewed perspective. Other religions like Buddhism and Taoism which emphasize the experiential/emotional, might be painted with the same brush. Similarly with the secular philosophical viewpoint latching onto the philosophical elements in Buddhism to the detriment of other elements. We are drawn to what we are familiar with. And feel alienated from that with which we have little or no experience.

Another grouping of the characteristics of religion includes Intellectual, emotional and active/performance. More will be said later about these, with particular reference to the Intellectual elements.

My definition is:

Religious activity has the main purpose of transformation towards an ultimate, subjectively held ideal. Religion is intellectual, emotional and material action reflecting the process of that transformative function. Religion as a system (of thought, of manipulating emotions or in institutional settings and usually in all 3) mediates inevitable change. Religion then is a mediator of reality.

[I am drawing this definition in part from Systems Theory]

Buddhism, the Abrahamic faiths, and any world-wide religious practices, from Shamanism and charismatic Christian revival to Scientology fulfil this definition. While science (material), philosophy (intellectual), psychology (emotional) do not. (Does my definition stand up to scrutiny? Please let me know in case I need to refine it further)

Religion or Not? Does it Matter?

Arun at Angry Asian Buddhist made some interesting points regarding the more objective socio-political reasons why it matters in  a recent post

  • Freedom of religion doesn’t apply to Buddhism.
  • Buddhism doesn’t belong in interreligious dialogue.
  • Monks and nuns should not be eligible for visas as religious workers.
  • Buddhism doesn’t belong in religious studies.
  • Persecuted Buddhists shouldn’t get religious amnesty.

This makes me think of the situation with yoga. Now yoga itself is not a religion. It is, in India, part of the Hindu religion amongst the yogis of my acquaintance. In North America however it has been sliced off from it’s origins and has become something unto itself. I do know that some yogis and yoginis in the West do understand the historical underpinnings and doctrines behind it. The difference is that in India yogis are seen as holy people. They enjoy the full protection of the Indian constitution with regard to freedom of religion. If you substitute Yogi for the Buddhist references in the above in India all these exclusions would not apply. And Yogis of Hindu origin would also enjoy that in America and elsewhere. In the West yogis that do not identify with the Hindu origins would not be able to access that same protection.

So when meditation in and of itself or Buddhist psychotherapy or Buddhist contemplative science (referring to writings by B. Alan Wallace -and there’s more to say on his hypothesis but not right now) comes into play the usual protections of rights fall away. One could make a case for freedom of association or thought or the like but it’s a much harder one to fight.

Another example of the confusion that occurs in slicing off bits and pieces of a religious practice is in Malaysia which is a Muslim country but with significant and diverse non-Muslim populations as well, including people of Indian and Chinese origins. The government there recently outlawed Yoga practice for Muslim citizens. A  backlash occurred since many Muslims there enjoy yoga as exercise in much the same way that many Western people do. The government amended the restriction and now yoga may be practiced by Muslims as long as it is not in a religious context.

I bring up the latter instance because it represents a situation where freedom of religion, even religion by implication, is not fully enjoyed. The secularization of particular religious practices is not without benefit in this particular instance. So I’m not saying instances of secularization need be condemned or some other fundamentalist type of statement. Sometimes by way of introduction to Buddhist thought and practice the secular avenue is the most approachable for some people. Nothing wrong with that. The only problem arises is when secular thought then, with it’s self-imposed limitations decides that some distorted subset of Buddhism is the whole of Buddhism.  I mentioned several of those limitations above such as philosophy, self-help psychology, or contemplative science. Buddhism is all of these and more. And further when those who do embrace the whole are vilified as religious fundamentalists, superstitious fools, deluded “believers”,  or something equally as obnoxious, this is an attempt to force them into the secularist box.

Some Contentious Assumptions

Over-rating the value of intelligence and scientific approaches and some other contentious assumptions seem to be made by certain secular Buddhists. On one blog recently this comment was left:

“for those who categorize Buddhism as a religion, this essay from B Alan Wallace might stretch your perspective http://bit.ly/YjH27

That the author believes stretching the perspective with B. Alan Wallace’s article is necessary for religiously-oriented Buddhists certainly smacks of some kind of assumption. As for stretching the mind I ask,  “What is the name of that asana?”  Clearly the author of the comment has equated religious Buddhists with small minds, meaning lacking in intelligence.

This worship of the intellect is not confined to one commenter.

Over on BeliefNet, the OneCity blog had an interesting piece about Buddhism and intelligence called Buddhism For Dummies – I Don’t Think So. I admit I quite got into it over there in the comments. Some part of the reason for that relates to the notion that religion is for superstitious and backward types, while philosophy, neuroscience, psychology represent intelligent, modern viewpoints.  There is a certain elitism in some of the more secular forms of Buddhism.

In an interview with Robert Sharf, scholar and Buddhist priest the interviewer has stated the following:

Buddhist modernism, … is the tendency to interpret Buddhist tradition through the lens of contemporary and largely unexamined assumptions, prejudices, and values.

If you read his whole interview on the Tricycle community you will find much to recommend the view to a broader view of Buddhism than through this narrow lens.  Sharf states:

One way of looking at Buddhism is as a conversation, and this conversation has been going on now for over two thousand years – a long time. Participation in this conversation has always been predicated on having a foundation in various aspects of the tradition – its literature, its philosophy, its rituals, its discipline, and so on. It is a conversation about what it is to be a human being: why we suffer, how we can resolve our suffering, what works, what doesn’t, and so forth. These are big issues, and whichever one you choose to look at, you are not going to find a single Buddhist position. There have always been different positions, and these would be debated and argued. But all parties to the debate were presumed to share a common religious culture – a more or less shared world of texts, ideas, practices – without which there could be no real conversation.

That the atomization of Buddhism into the reductionist positions of philosophy, science or psychology then does preclude a continuing conversation.

Here are a couple of self-descriptions of secular Buddhist blogs as examples:

If you’re interested in how your mind works, are interested in meditation (but don’t want to pretend you live in ancient Asia), care about the world, are into media, love contemporary culture, and above all, really dig the truth of interdependence-that nothing happens in a vacuum–then this blog is for you.

This is a group-blog on the topic of progressive, modern Buddhism – looking at Buddhism in the light of modern knowledge, free from over-attachment to ancient dogmas; looking at the best ways to integrate Buddhism into Modern/Western societies; discussing and encouraging an empirical or scientific approach; seeing insight and awakening as a living tradition not just a historical one

Both use the words ancient in contrast to modern/contemporary, both attempt to distance themselves from any sort of Asian connection and both position themselves as being providers of some sort of Buddhist interpretation for the “modern” world.

This attempt to dismantle Buddhism and to import selected ideas and practices may see some success initially. But what happens is that such an integrated system will inevitably bring along all those unselected parts and those will have to be dealt with.

The Conversion of Buddhism

If one has some interest in the history of religions and particularly new religious movements there are some pertinent trends that continually emerge.

One of the principle things to note is that with religious developments historically each does not supercede the last but incorporates it.  Elements of the older religions in a given geographical or socio-cultural area are carried over into the newer forms. (eg. Bon in Tibet)  Religion is not invented anew but pieced together with the prevailing belief systems.  This is important because not only the elements of the new religion but many elements of the old belief system still manifest.

In the case of secular America currently many people who turn to Buddhism have rejected the majority Christian religion. Christianity, with it’s sometimes authoritarian manner has become identified with the word religion.  As have the extremist actions of Muslim fundamentalists in the form of terrorism. Much of this rejection of Christianity (and Religion) has brought about a zeal for rationality and intellectualism. Modern Buddhist religion is suffering from the backlash against aggressive Christian and Islamic prosthelytizing practices and power assertions. I am not arguing against Christianity or Islam, only against aggressive, coercive practices done in the name of a religion in the specific case of America.

What continues to happen though, with the adoption of a new belief system is that a major portion of the undesired framework comes along with it. Some have labeled this “cultural baggage” or “ancient dogma” or “traditional practices” or “Asian influence”. Nonetheless these things do make themselves known (in blog posts too).  Here are a couple of examples of this in North American and European Buddhist convert practices:

  • Seasonal activities tied to the country of origin. If the new improved secular Buddhism has indeed loosed itself from the ties to Asian culture what is the purpose and meaning of  Ango or the rains retreats. There is no summer monsoon season on the continents of North America or Europe or Australia.
  • Secular Buddhism still involves hierarchies, politics and an (increasing)ordering of society (institutions, ritual and moral rules to obey) as in Asia. Teachers, students, rules of a Zendo, are one such example
  • Chanting in a language other than English (or other European language)
  • Buddhist religious symbolism. What is the purpose of a traditional symbol in a philosophy, psychology or science context? (ie Buddha statue) And why are such symbols imported (not the physical thing but the idea or image) rather than constructed locally? (An exception, I believe, is Joko Beck who uses natural local objects rather than statuary)
  • Rites of passage. To practice meditation or psychotherapy even using the Buddhist methodology does not require the taking of vows.

Buddhist religion is already here. And has been for much longer than the Neo-Secular-Buddhists would currently like to recognize.

So whether we wish to call it a religion or not the reality of the situation is that it has already taken on many of the religious characteristics that exist in Asia.  And this will only become more evident in the future.

So it matters if we want to acknowledge reality.

Religion or Not? Does it Matter? The Persecution of Buddhists

It also matters for one other reason. If:

Religious activity has the main purpose of transformation towards an ultimate, subjectively held ideal. Religion is intellectual, emotional and material action reflecting the process of that transformative function. Religion as a system (of thought, of manipulating emotions or in institutional settings and usually in all 3) mediates inevitable change. Religion then is a mediator of reality.

then in this view there is only religion as either action or reflection of action. So since the old adage goes “Action speaks louder than words” consider the actions of all the Buddhist people now and throughout time.

For Buddhism to be seen as anything less than a religion is an insult to hundreds of thousands of monks and nuns who currently dedicate their lives to the dharma. And even more so it is to forget the thousands who have given their lives for the dharma throughout history. In India there have been many persecutions of Buddhists throughout history. As well persecutions have and in some cases currently are underway in China, Tibet, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Burma, Mongolia, Korea, Soviet Union, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Japan, America.

That the Buddhist religion survived concerted efforts to eradicate it speaks strongly about the resilience of the Dharma and it’s adherents and their faith. These people did not die for a philosophy.

In Conclusion

After writing this post I almost trashed it. All these words and quibbles and insight and ignorance going round and round.  It felt more and more like a waste of time and effort.  Then I happened upon some interesting words by Paul Lynch in the comments of a post on the Sweep the Dust, Push the Dirt blog. (Paul keeps his own blog at Zen Mirror) . Among other pertinent things he said “…all of our constructs are poor substitutions for reality.”

So here I’ve been hacking away on and off for a couple of days on this real fancy construction of a blog post, adorning it with some amount of energetic and wordy decoration yet knowing full well it will never adequately represent the reality of Buddhism, secular culture or my thoughts on these topics.

So there is some choice to be made with these things. As it happens something else occurred which is spurring my choice to put this on the blog anyway. In the past couple of days I’ve been writing comments on a couple of well known blogs and self-identifying as a “religious” Buddhist. That’s the first time I’ve come out with it plainly. Coincidentally today, 2 people have stricken me from their blog-rolls and 2 have dropped me as Facebook friends. (There is a total of 3 people there-all 3 are secularists) Apparently my religious declaration didn’t go down too well with them.  I did not attack a secular view of Buddhism but attempted to write from a religious (not fundamentalist) position. It seems that to do so, especially if you are not a monk, nun, priest or teacher is equated with some sort of coercion into religion.

There are a lot of demands from the secular Buddhist crowd to be heard, acknowledged and validated in their opinions of Buddhism. Many of these opinions are not the result of studying Buddhism in either monastic situations or in academic situations. And often not even with any sort of teacher or Sangha. What is being asked is a validation of an invented form of what Buddhism “ought to be according to me”. And when immediate validation is withheld or consideration of the position is not whole-hearted a reaction ensues. Just to put forward an openly religious opinion, not expecting agreement or even acknowledgement seems to threaten some people.(I am reminded of a short post on the Ramblings of a Monk blog called Disagreeing or not understanding (knowing))

Now it doesn’t really matter to me what lists I am on. It makes little difference to what is written here or how I live. It does matter to me that nice people would withdraw from a position they either don’t understand or apparently don’t agree with. To me that signals fear or dis-ease, dis-comfort and yes suffering.   It is not as simple as East and West or tradition and modern or progressive and traditional or race or culture. The world views of the secular and the religious Buddhists are different. Having been raised in a secular society and having studied Buddhism in both secular (academic) and religious contexts and presently living in a religious culture has formed my opinions.  Having the benefit of both perspectives gives some justification for the analysis of this question.

Everyone’s got to decide this one for themselves. One can’t just up and switch world views like changing hats. It takes a lot of work to see another’s perspective. It takes no effort at all to shut people down just because you think you may not like their point of view. Just because I’ve chosen to engage Buddhism from a religious perspective does not mean I don’t understand secular perspectives.  It doesn’t necessarily mean I need my perspective “stretched” or that I am in the throes of some kind of “brainwashed” cult-like delusion.  And especially it doesn’t mean I don’t know the difference between reality and it’s representations. Yeah I get it-the finger and the moon.

All told Buddhism represents Buddhism. It is what it is. It doesn’t need to be a science, philosophy, psychology or even a religion. It is itself just like the rest of reality.

Here are some of the blog discussions

Wandering Dhamma  New Trends in ‘Western’ Buddhism

Barbara O’Brien has had a couple of posts on this. Buddhism as Religion and Religion as Buddhism.

Tricycle blog Is Buddhism a Religion? The question that won’t go away.

Secularizing Buddhism–Making it Accessible or Stripping the Roots? from the  One City blog

Beyond Science, Beyond Religion on Progressive Buddhism

Sweep the dust, push the dirt blog offers numerous related posts such as Athiests Love Buddhism!

definitions is the latest post at the buddha is my dj blog that deals with matters related as well

At The Zennist When Buddhism isn’t Buddhism & chili beans ain’t chili beans

Buddhism without the Buddha on the Breathe blog

What Religion Needs to Get Right…If It Doesn’t Want to Go Wrong-Clark Strand offers a broader view of the religion debate

Modernising Buddhism-Ashin Sopaka of the blog a raft offers his view

An article with letter writing back and forth on whether Buddhism is religion or not at Tricycle magazine

On persecutions of Buddhists

Persecutions of Buddhists Wikipedia

Anti-Buddhism -list of further links

Persecution of Buddhists -lists and short descriptions

Spirit of tolerance, harmonisation and assimilation in Buddhism – from The Buddhist Channel

About these ads

8 comments on “Would You Die for a "Philosophy"?

  1. Hi,

    I was browsing the internet and by chance I came across your interesting blog.

    I thought of getting in touch, since you and your readers may be interested in “Stillness Buddy”, a software application I’ve just launched last week.

    Stillness Buddy helps people to remain mindful of the present moment, relaxed and at peace, while working at the computer.

    It works by displaying short “moments of stillness” and longer “mindfulness pauses”, interspersed during the day. These breaks are designed to be very brief, so that they don’t interfere with work. You can choose their duration and frequency, to suit your preferences and schedule.

    By regularly practising the stillness and mindfulness exercises presented during the breaks, Stillness Buddy quickly and effectively helps to:
    * Cultivate a deep sense of peace and stillness in every day life.
    * Be more relaxed, less tense.
    * Work in a more mindful, alert and stress-free manner
    * Live more and more in the present moment

    Stillness Buddy is for those of us who want to be more at peace and aware of the present moment, in the midst of our busy lives. It is also a great tool if you want to feel less tense and stressed. It is suitable for people of all walks of life, regardless of their spiritual practice or religious background.

    You can find more about Stillness Buddy and download a 30-day free trial, at https://www.stillnessbuddy.com

    If you like the application, would you be able to review it on your blog? I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me to spread the word.

    In return, I’d be happy to provide you with a free, licensed copy of Stillness Buddy and to arrange a special discount for your readers, when they mention your name.

    Also, I am setting up an affiliate program, which should be ready in about a month, which may be of interest to you too.

    I look forward to hearing from you,

    Hector
    MindFree Ventures (Stillness Buddy)

  2. This wonderful, well thought out post and all you’ve gotten is an advertisement for some project … well, I found the whole discussion about intelligence and Buddhism over at the One City blog fascinating.

    It seems to me that some of the trouble, maybe a lot of the trouble, can be boiled down to believing you’ve got the whole works pinned down, and can tell others who is a Buddhist, who isn’t, and why. And beyond that, feeling that whatever view you personally take must be supported by others, or else they are denigrating your practice.

    Your post seems to point to the line between the basic respect we all deserve and the needy reverence that many of us want, but which ultimately is another cause of suffering.

  3. Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, this paper I presented at the 1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, held at The Lonavla Yoga Institute (India), Lonavla, Pune in 2006. The Abstract of this paper is given below:

    The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.

    AND

    ‘In Scientific Terminology Source of Gravitational Wave is God’ I have presented this paper at the 2nd World Congress on Vedic Sciences held at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi on February 9-11, 2007. The Abstract of this paper is given below:

    For Centuries, antagonism remained between science and religion. Science and spirituality require to be fused. An integrated philisophy is to be developed. It is written in the scriptures that entire creation is being maintained only through love or force of attraction. In Persian it is known as quvat-i-jaziba. It is on account of this force that the entire creation, which come into existence through the combination of small particles and atoms, is being maintained and sustained. The creation or universe includes everything that exists. In the universe there are billions and billions of stars. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of a galaxy, star and planet etc. and various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Gravitation force is the ultimate creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe. These are the three attributes of God. Providence has located within the human body a spiritual faculty. When this faculty is developed like physical and mental faculties we find that Truth-the goal of science and God-the goal of religion are one and the same thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s