Credit: FreeFoto.com
A person who is really interested to find out if there is something sacred in life, something that is eternal, beyond matter and beyond cause and effect must ask himself the following questions:
Am I, the seeker, different from what I am seeking? How do I define the two separate entities, the “me” and “God”?
What is the purpose of my search? Do I want to discover something new for the love of it or is there a specific motive behind the search?
What is the role of belief and faith in my search?
Will I be able to recognize what I am seeking? In what way my thinking, my knowledge, experience and memory that I have acquired so far is helpful in my search?
What are my criteria of selecting a particular method or a particular path to truth? Is God some kind of a goal to be achieved in life and if so, what is the role of desire, effort and will in order to achieve that goal?
Is it possible for the mind that has been conditioned to think in a particular way to act independently and objectively without any bias?
These questions need to be explored in the light of the following facts. Our thinking is conditioned by the culture in which we are born. It has been shaped by tradition, religious dogmas, education, and social pressures. A wide range of influences, pouring in from various directions, ensemble for each one of us an outlook, a view of life; not just a theoretical view but an operational one which affects, to a large extent, our perceptions and responses. We are shaped quite firmly by the cultural mould.
Our concept about God and belief in God are part and parcel of the conditioned mind. Concepts are passed on from one generation to another. Concepts formed at an early age are taken for granted. Generally the image of God is created by assigning to it qualities and attributes that are just the opposite of the qualities of the human mind. If I am fearful, then God is fearless. If the mind has the qualities of hate, anger and violence, then God is love and peace. Human beings create inequality on the basis of race, religion, caste or nationality, but God stands for equality and justice. Any concept of the unknown is the product of our own thinking. Thought creates God and then thought worships the image that thought has created.
Belief and faith in God are born out of man’s need for psychological security. Psychologically the “self”, the “me”, which is also the creation of our own thought process, is insecure. “Self” identifies itself with something that it thinks is permanent, secure and stable. That is why people cling to their respective beliefs. There are so many beliefs and ideologies but the reason why human beings believe in something or the other is the same.
At present we have so many religions in the world. In each religion there are several groups, each having its own particular belief system. Each religion has its own set of dogmas and rituals. Each belief system promises the followers bliss, happiness, security and peace. Each religion has laid down its own particular path to Truth. The followers are expected to follow different methods to obtain the desired result.
Our thinking is rooted in self-interest. It is goal oriented. Motive decides our action. Anything that caters to our self-interest appeals to us. Thinking always seeks pleasure and avoids pain. Belief offers hope for a better future. The urge for the fulfillment of our desires is the primary reason for our attachment to God.
Thinking functions within the area of the known. The fact is that the future is unknown. Thinking, however, projects the future from past memory, knowledge and experience. Same way it creates in the mind an image of God which actually is unknown. Any kind of image of the unknown is nothing else but an illusion and self-deception.
Knowledge is always limited. Therefore, our thinking is limited. It can have no relationship with that which is unknown and unlimited. Thinking functions within the domain of the known. It cannot describe that which is indescribable. Thinking is a material process in the brain. It can never know that is beyond matter.
God is not a fixed entity sitting somewhere in the sky. God is living energy that can be experienced from moment to moment. Thinking, being entrenched in the past, has no clue about the living present which is beyond time. Thinking can recognize that which it already knows. There is no way that a person can approach God through thought. Unfortunately at present man’s relationship with God is based only on thought and this relationship, therefore, has no validity whatsoever.
Truth can operate only when the mind is free from everything that is false. Without Truth life has very little meaning. Concepts about God are based on irrational thinking. We talk about oneness of God, yet our thinking creates separation and division on the basis of ideas and beliefs. The process of identification with a belief is the root cause of so much conflict, misery and sorrow in the world. Deep understanding of our own thought process is an absolute necessity.
Your comments are most welcome.
Sardar Singh
sardarsingh@msn.com
Hello, I just wanted to comment a bit about your article titled “Man-Made Mind” [Man Made God] in the June 2009 issue of the Saathee publication. First off, it was a great article with many valid points that you made clear-such as, “truth can operate only when the mind is free from everything that is false”[first sentence of the last paragraph]. I’m guessing from your analogies in this article that perhaps you may have studied or majored in philosophy at university? In any case, the article is well thought out and well written all the same. However the case, I must say that there were a few points that I respectfully disagree with. The first being the paragraph when you said that “each belief system [of each religion] promises the followers bliss, happiness, secruity and peace” Well I’m not so sure about the bliss and happiness bit. In fact, as a practising yet far far from perfect Christian, I can tell you that both the Catholic and Protestant faiths assure their respect new converts that it only gets tougher in this life if they truly seek to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Though it’s obvious that a religious belief must bring forth some feelings of happiness from a time to time or else nobody would ever practise any religious faith at all. Another point you made was that “Any kind of image of the unknown is nothing else but an illuision and self deception” Indeed, many eastern faiths that date back to ancient times even prior to that of Christianity and Islam do put emphasis upon an “image” or physical dipiction of God. Well, I’m sure that you’re probably aware that from an Islamic point of view, such images wether depicted physically or mentally are an absolute No No. I guess my point is that I’m really not sure how some followers of some religious faiths can be decieved by images that don’t really exist in the first place or don’t really have any emphasis place upon them. Forgive me if I refered only to some of the most prominent faiths in the western world [i.e. Judaeo-Christianity and Islam]. I suppose those are the only examples that come to mind at this present time. I’m sure also that Zorastrians frown upon images of God likewise. Lastly, isn’t it also quite plausible that atheists and agnostics are culturally conditioned to believe what they belive in as well? For instance, one of my best friend’s an atheist because his father raised him to be an atheist. His mother really did’nt contrast his father’s beliefs or she may have been an atheist herself. Of course that is just one scenario where it all began at home for someone. I’m sure it’s safe to say that most people who are atheist or agnostic reached their conclusion about their respective beliefs via a cultural influence, social contact, or from their peers at school, work or their neighbourhood watering hole [pub or bar]. With all due respect, perhaps even some of your own views expressed in your article may stem from some sort of cultural conditioning in your own life one way or another. Perhaps some cultural conditioning is what makes us who we are and that’s not always a bad thing is it? As long as there is a universal consensus of what is right and wrong or good and bad. Am I conditioned by my culutural influences? Absolutley. Religiously? Maybe so. Though I can assure you that my personal view of God is quite in contrast than what my father believes and possibly my mother too- who between the two has had the most profound influence upon my life [my mother]. In essence, maybe there is no escaping conditioning of any form and it stands to reason that religious belief is no exception. Thank you for your time… My sincere regards. Joe Haskins … Kingston N.C.
1.All the organized religions are based on the principle of reward and punishment. Even if life gets tougher if a person follows the example of Jesus or any spiritual teacher the motivation for action is based on the promise of some kind of reward in this life or life after death. The Hindu ascetics and Buddhist monks go through rigorous discipline in order to achieve nirvana or enlightenment. Motive for action is not free from self-interest. We cannot find out if there is something unconditional, beyond cause and effect so long as the mind is operating within the field of cause and effect – ‘if you do this you will get that.’
2.In Islam they may say that any image whether depicted physically or mentally is an absolute no but in actuality that is not so. They prey five times a day facing in a particular direction with a clear description of God in their mind. The word “God” carries with it some description. That description is the image. Different religions offer different descriptions. The description indicates that they already know what God is. Description sustains the belief. Relationship between “me” and “God” is relationship between two images – the image that I have about myself and the image that I have about God. But the fact is that God is not the product of our thinking. We need to ask if thinking has any role in our search for God. Is thinking not a hindrance? Thinking is rooted in knowledge and knowledge is always limited.
3.Believers close their mind when they create an image of God and the atheists close their mind by denying something which they do not know. How can you deny something about which you do not have any knowledge whatsoever? Obviously the idea of not believing is merely a reaction. It is born out of the mind that is ignorant. Both the believers and non-believers are not interested to find out the Truth. Believers find satisfaction in the image and the non believers have already reached a conclusion.
4.Thinking is conditioned by the culture in which we live. It has been shaped by tradition and by numerous influences. Religious dogmas, economic situation, education and social pressures condition our thinking. We are slaves to the propaganda of priests and politicians. Past cultures of the world have created divisions on the basis of race, color, caste, religion and nationality. Cultures at present are doing exactly the same thing. Any action based on an idea, belief or an ideology creates division. Thought cultivates prejudice, opinion, judgment and these create division. At the individual level when an individual acts on the basis of conditioned thought that very act creates conflict. At the collective level organized groups, religions and nations bring about division exactly the same way. When organizations divide this leads to war. It is, therefore, imperative that we must understand the nature of our conditioning. We should be able to make a clear distinction between an idea and the fact
Your comments or questions to what has been said are most welcome.
Thank you Sardar for responding to my comments. You have indeed made your position regarding your original points much more clear and that is also appreciated. I feel however you and I have reached an impass on certain topics we’ve discussed that may only result in trivial “hairsplitting” [for lack of a better term] in hindsight. I do still respect all of your opinions just the same. Just one more thought however, and do feel free to respond. You said in your last reply that “thought” leads to ideas of prejudice, opinion, judgment ect… which only leads to division and conflict. Would you agree that in the past “thought” has united, liberated and in hindsight helped produce results that were beneficial to world societies or the world as a whole? Example’s
Ghandi: Indian Indepedence.
M.L.K.: The ending of Jim Crow Apartheid in the United States
Desmond Tutu: The ending of Apartheid in South Africa.
Just to name a few..
A person, who is uncertain, confused looks to someone else for help not knowing that misery, turmoil and confusion are the outcome of one’s own thinking process. There cannot be love without clarity. In love there is no division between “you” and “me”. Love is the only solution to our problems. Love is not a commodity that can be given by one person to another. The moment a person feels he is something more than others he denies love. The moment a person calls another person a leader he has downgraded himself. This way we perpetuate division between “you” and “me”
In response to Joe Haskins question two article have been posted in the website. Please read the articles carefully and leave your comments.
Joe points out that “… many eastern faiths that date back to ancient times even prior to that of Christianity and Islam do put emphasis upon an “image” or physical depiction of God. Well, I’m sure that you’re probably aware that from an Islamic point of view, such images whether depicted physically or mentally are an absolute No No.”
Wonderful Joe, wonderful! But why stop just there? Aren’t we all, still now, heavily involved in the act of “imaging” via our notions of happiness, life of perfection, the ideals for a society, the pursuit of democracy, the act of charity, the act of violence, etc.? We might have moved away from earlier depictions of God, but all we have done is to replace them with our current images of “God”. We still require the selected authorities implied in Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, the various doctrines to define for us this object called “God”. Aren’t these all acts of “imaging” to capture what is incomprehensible? God, after so many millennia, is still depicted in images that we cherish. We are no different than our forefathers, isn’t that so? We may be more abstract, less crude, but make no mistake – we are as keen to paint our God of choice as were our predecessors.
Joe asserts: “With all due respect, perhaps even some of your own views expressed in your article may stem from some sort of cultural conditioning in your own life one way or another. Perhaps some cultural conditioning is what makes us who we are and that’s not always a bad thing is it?” I think the issue is not whether something is good or bad, but whether one could see “reality” (truth, the actuality of something as is) through “conditioning”! I see I’m conditioned. I see my entirety without any “good-bad” judgment. I see how conditional thinking limits me, how they preoccupy me in trivial chores allowing me to waste energy totally unnecessarily. Seeing all these in totality, would I not be able to understand the “reality” of myself as I’m? Seeing that I’m no different from the society, indeed, seeing that I’m my society, would I realize the global, universal truth that we all are without isolating ourselves? If I seriously want to understand this world, this universe, what lies beyond, what lies within, the God, the lack of God – could I possibly touch all these without ever understanding “this Me, AS IS”, the tentacles of relationship that this “Me” has developed over all this time? This is the point, I think, Mr. Singh is making through this particular exposition.
If we see the issues raised here by Mr. Singh are false (or misrepresented) or are projected through a layer of a conditioned mind – in spite of the fact their obvious appeal factors — let us go directly to those points rationally, and point out why they fail to touch the truth. That’s the least we could do to ourselves. But what would be pointless is to suggest that these observations of Mr. Singh stem from a conditioned mind, and, therefore, they are personal, and hence, have no appeal to the impersonal, the universality. It would be patently unfair to both Mr. Singh and to the readers of this entity. The question is: Does his observation describe me, describe my relationships? Are these valid for me, too?
I read your article on “Man- made mind” I admire the article. You have some thought provoking ideas.
Congratulations!
Let me respond to your article.
Yes. I do believe that man has created God! However it is more accurate to say that man has made the idea of God.
God is who God is. Our idea of God may not be the same as the eternal reality or divine universal consciousness.
Few other points:
1.Man did not make mind. We prefer certain ideas or accept particular thoughts but how do you know that the nature has not designed certain things in our brain to develop in certain ways based on evolution?
2.Man did not make God. Man just created the “idea” of God. We do not know that this idea came merely from our “need’ or it was programmed in our system. The new research in Neuroscience claims certain centers that has tendency to promote God related ideas.
3.Darshan shatra had Jaimini and Gutam rishi who supported the “ Nastik” theory. So your idea is very old. Charvark’s had questioned Vedas some 3000 years ago.
4.In Christianity also, there were agnostics who came from Greek thinking. Jainism and Buddhism do not believe in God idea.
5.Vedic scholars differentiate Brahman from Ishwara. First is “ neti neti”- not this not this. Second is chosen form of the deity as personal god.
6.You say, ‘God is living energy….’ That is also an idea.
7.Truth is also a human idea. Truth can be relative or ABSOLUTE. But how do we know the absolute? So your idea that life has no meaning without truth is a meaningless. What is meaningless? It depends upon your thought and definition of “ meaning”
8.Several mystics, who did not “need’ God or had no selfish motive have felt something supernatural and have believed ( faith) that this unique experience is related to God. When these experiences are fairly uniform and described by various scholars of different time and place, we have to believe that there is some truth in it.
9.The point is Mr. Singh, even the logic has limitation. Yes our mind is limited. Yes our idea of God is man made or made by our mind, we have to start somewhere. Walk slowly but start at some point of assumption.
10.I fully agree with you, the ideas created by organized religions and Sampradays have created confusion and violence at times.
I think it is very important to make a clear distinction between an idea and the fact. The word “tree” is not the tree. The fact is that the eternal reality is immeasurable and unknown. It cannot be grasped by the intellect. When our thinking which is limited makes an abstraction of that reality and treats the abstraction as a fact then so many problems arise. We can very easily see that different organized religions offer different ideas of God and that has led to division and conflict.
There is no doubt about the fact that nature has designed things in our brain to develop in certain ways based on evolution. One of the main things is the ability to think. Unfortunately Man at some point of time committed a serious blunder when thinking created images about things that do not exist and about things that cannot be comprehended by thought. Thought created an idea of the “me” and treated this idea as a fact. Human brain is conditioned by this idea. The entity called the “I” treats itself separate from “you” and creates duality between “me” and “you”. Same way by treating God as an object thinking creates an image of God and treats God separate from “me”
Human beings experience love, beauty and joy. Ability to think is important. But it has its own place and love has its own place. There is no relationship without love. When thinking describes love, that description is not love. We can easily see how this word is misused in our day to day living.
The idea of God got programmed in our brain because of our need for psychological security. “Self” by its very nature is insecure. It finds security when it gets identified with something stable and permanent. The reason why people believe in something or the other is the same. This need for psychological security sustains the belief.
There is not much difference between a person who believes in God and the person who does not believe in God. Believers close their mind when they create an image of God and the atheists close their mind by denying something which they do not know. How can you deny something which you do not know? Obviously the idea of not believing is merely a reaction. It is born out of the mind that is ignorant. Both the believers and non-believers are not interested to find out the Truth. Believers find satisfaction in the image and the non believers have already reached a conclusion.
Human mind is capable of pure and objective observation. This faculty is not being used because we are so much accustomed to looking at things only through the screen of ideas and beliefs. The question is, is it possible to set aside whatever is written in the holy books and look with a fresh mind. Is it possible to realize that thinking can make a concept of Truth but the concept is not the Truth? It is important to realize the limitation of thought and go beyond it. So long as we operate within the field of thought we are caught in the process of measurement and comparison.
I fully agree with you that we have to start somewhere. But we don’t have start at some point of assumption because then the assumption will decide the course of our journey. We should start from where we are now. By understanding the nature of our mind we can remove so many illusions. Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom.
Thank you for your insightful answer.
I agree and feel same on the subject.
Starting journey with ” open mind” is important.
In early stage of such travel, some may benefit from starting with an assumption, as long as he/she is willing to change.
One needs trial and error or experience ” it”
Now some may seek help of a ” GURU”.
For most tricycle- bicycle and then one wheeel!!
Rituals use mind, body and speech so it becomes like a tricycle.
Recitation uses silent speech and mind.
Meditation just uses Mind. ( to control or train the thought process.)
Then it is like a lake.
If the mind is calm, we might get a glimse of the clear bottom.
I agree lots of our ideas need varification and with open mind and thoughtful review of those who have trvelled on such roads before, we might get to the correct direction. Once we are comvined that the journey is inward then the kindness and love will flourish, if the self if realized.
You have said that in early stage some may benefit from starting with an assumption, as long as they are willing to change. Don’t you think this is a contradictory statement? Assumptions are the root cause of our problems. A person who takes an assumption for granted is not at all willing to change. If he wants to be free from assumption and look with a simple and innocent mind why does he need to get stuck in an assumption and waste his time?
If the experience is based on assumptions then the nature of experience is predetermined and the results are already known. There is no way that errors get rectified by trials coming out of the same framework of mind that works on the basis of assumptions.
Are we not yet fed up with the Gurus? For centuries human beings relied on authorities who they thought would solve their problems. Where are we now? If I am greedy and the Guru is greedy how is he going to help me to be free from greed? To say that the Guru is not greedy is a very risky assumption. Moreover are we so much incapacitated to directly look at anything? Can’t I see that I am greedy, why I am greedy and what are the implications of greed? When I have to look at the tree I have to use my own eyes. I can’t use Guru’s eyes to see the tree. Same way I should be able to look at things the way they are in so for as the mind is concerned. No body on this earth can do this for me.
Rituals and recitations are performed thoughtlessly. You do not use your rational thinking to perform a ritual or recite a poem that you have already memorized. You have said that in meditation you use the mind to control the thought process. This again is a contradictory statement. Mind is nothing else but thought process. You take away the thought process where is the mind. How can you use thought process to control thought process. This is like dog chasing its own tail.
The fact is that no system, no method, no Guru can solve the problems that we ourselves have created. The only way is to see how the mind creates the problem. The very observation of the problem without bias, without prejudice is the ending of the problem. When one sees the illusion, illusion does not exist. Problems are being created by the mind that is caught in illusions.
We are attached to people, property and ideas in order to be secure and this very attachment creates fear and anxiety. Is it not necessary to see the fallacy in this thought process? Why should I need a Guru to see something which is the fact of my day to day life?
If a thief is afraid of being caught and he wants to live a life that is free from fear, all that he has to do is to stop stealing. If a greedy person actually sees the implications of greed then he will no longer be greedy. But the tragedy is that we do not want to look at greed because greed helps us to enhance our image and indulge in so many pleasures in life. Because we do not want to get rid of greed we run to gurus to help us cope with the problems arising out of greed.
Jayant writes: ‘Starting journey with ” open mind” is important.
In early stage of such travel, some may benefit from starting with an assumption, as long as he/she is willing to change.’
Immediately, we encounter a contradiction. If one starts “with an assumption”, mind is no longer “open” but very much biased by that assumption. How could one begin with an “open mind” as well as a working assumption?
Secondly, which assumption would be consistent to begin with? Every religion would claim their own hypothesis, their assumption would be the best. And the saber rattling in the world continues precisely on this claim. So, what does one do? What does it mean to “willing to change”? Change to what? Change from one belief regimen to another belief regimen because it promises a quicker fix, more happiness ever after, more profit now and hereafter? That’s a junkies approach!
To learn cycling, there is a specific objective: To master the art of riding a bike. But how could that be compared with touching God? Is “God” a thing that could be touched? If it is a product of our mind, how could we touch that which pertains to mind only? Which authority (Guru or ashram or community) is there to tell us what God is or isn’t?
Jayant says: “If the mind is calm, we might get a glimpse of the clear bottom””. But a mind occupied with the means to reach an objective, be it God, money, power, calmness of mind, or learning to ride a bike is already agitated simply because it is occupied. How can it be calm if ‘calmness’ is its goal to be achieved?
Also, there seems to be a hope that some guru or someone “who have travelled down the roads before” might give us the “correct direction”! Only if something is dead or concocted, a direction to that may be possible. But is God a “dead” entity? A “fixed” entity? What good is it to me if it’s already dead or predictable on my chart? Please think it out more deeply. Can anyone honestly suggest or give directions of God to another one? If someone asks me to describe the taste of a mango, would any description of a mango on my part would be sufficient for others to figure out precisely how it does taste? Wouldn’t the only way to get that idea is to taste it directly somehow?
Hello all:
Great to meet ol’ friend Saumen here! Another great friend, Dr. Parekh (who was a colleague at Rishi Valley 20 years ago), directed me to this web site. Thanks, Dr. Parekh!
Spinoza wrote: “If a triangle were to invent God, it would be a triangular God.” Ergo, as Mr. Singh rightly points out, Man Created God (in his image, and not the other way around).
That said, God/Truth is all around us. It comes pouring in when the incessant activity of the ego subsides. Very simply, God is when I am not. Kabir said:
JAB MEIN THHA TO HARI NAHIN THHA, AB HARI HAI TO MEIN NAHIN
SAB ANDHIYARA MIT GAYA, JAB DEEPAK DEKHA MANHIN…
[When I was, God wasn't; now when God is, I am not... all darkness vanished when the lamp was lit].
So, it is very simple – this issue of God/Truth. But because it is so simple, we miss it. That is so because the human mind deals in concepts, which are inherently complex. So, God/Truth becomes a topic of debate and a thousand religions are launched. God/Truth is all around us but like Kabir’s thirsty fish in water, we do not get a drop of it.
In order to realize God/Truth, solitude is necessary. In solitude, inner noises subside. And then there is nothing but God/Truth all around and within us. This is a verfiable truth.
My two cents. Thanks for reading. Thoughts and comments are welcome
Regards,
Somendra
There is perhaps a dynamic field of energy that pervades all matter, mind and consciousness in this universe and which may be the “stuff” out of which creation and destruction takes place. It has also perhaps given rise to the sub stratum of mind-matter-consciousness on which cycles of birth, life & death are constantly taking place.
God may be a label for this sub stratum, but to say that it is man-made is a little too simplistic. Of course, the God created by fear (a by-product of the mind-ego interaction) is totally false & is a mere illusion.
Dear Subu, what does it indicate when you use the word ‘perhaps’ or the words ‘may be’? If you actually know what you are saying you would not use these words. Obviously either you have heard from someone this description of God or the mind is making its own conjecture. But why is the mind hesitant to say ‘I don’t know, which is a fact. The urge to bring within the fold of the known that which is unknown is a hindrance to find out the truth. God and the concept of God are two different things. Any concept of God or any description of God is the creation of our own thought. The very fact that different people offer different description of God shows that there is a very serious problem in describing God.
Reminds me of the analogy of the blind men attempting to describe an elephant. My question is: What if the elephant could speak? Wouldn’t the account of the elephant be closer to the truth than those of the blind men? But as far as the blind men are concerned, it could be just the voice of another man pretending to be an elephant. And so, they move on holding their own views, neglecting the account from the source itself. My next question is: What if the eternal God had revealed Himself? If that is the case, then wouldn’t His account of Himself be closer to the truth than our account of Him?
Whenever we use the word God we should also say that which is unknown, indescribable, beyond thought, because thought is a material process in the brain. Thinking arises out of knowledge, experience and memory that is stored in the brain. Knowledge is always limited. Obviously a person who attempts to describe God is ignorant.
The question, what if the eternal God had revealed Himself implies that the questioner already knows that there is an entity called God that can reveal itself. If the eternal God revealed Himself would you be able to recognize Him? You can recognize things which you already know. What you already know is whatever you have been told. Whatever you have been told is not the Truth because Truth is not just a piece of information. Truth is not knowable. A person who says, he knows, does not know.
Hi Wayne. I think the point is that there is no eternal God except the many of our own making. God is a product of our thought and image-making. What would the account from the source itself be except more thought created images? If the eternal God had revealed himself, how would “he” give an account of himself?