Current Education System - Right or Wrong ?

It would not be an easy task to define Education System; rather I would start with an understanding of the entities involved in the education system and interactions between them. Assuming that “Education” starts only at educational institutes, that itself becomes one of the primary entities of the education system. Students, Teachers, Subjects, Syllabus, Classrooms can be seen as other primary entities.

The concept of education dates back to Indus Valley Civilization. Then and even now, these entities have remained the same. But the interactions, need, style and methodologies of interactions has either evolved or simply changed over time due to social, political, scientific and cultural reasons. I would call these reasons as secondary entities.

Further, educational classrooms itself took various definitions; from Indus valley as Veda paata in gurukulas to madraasa of Mughals to schools and collages of British, along with the changes in subjects, syllabus and so on. The question posed inhere is not which one of these are right. The question is what combination of these would best suite the current needs of the society and country.

With the advent of British rule, the scope of teachers has been limited to the boundaries of educational institutes, unlike monarchal times; where the teachers made major political decisions, took responsibility of the king himself and hence the society. Due to this limitation, the value and quality of the very profession took reverse direction leading to poor quality in students - cascading to social and political downfall in terms of ethics, responsibility, moral values and expertise in various fields.

At the same time on a positive front, British system of education gives an opportunity and capability to interact with the global world as equals. The competitive nature pushes the smartest, fittest up the economic wheel. The idea of providing a same ground for all the players rules out reservation. However in India, this came along with reservation; over time cast and creed has become the canopy of current education system.

I call here, inviting you to speak, debate and try solving various issues and also try to strengthen the positives of current education system.

Spirituality Anyone ? - A HARD HITTING SPEECH BY JAVED AKHTAR

SPEECH: JAVED AKHTAR

I am quite sure ladies and gentlemen, that in this august assembly nobody would envy my position at this moment. Speaking after such a charismatic and formidable personality like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is like coming out of the pavilion to play after Tendulkar has made a sparkling century. But in some weak moment I had committed myself.

There are certain things that I would like to make very clear at the very outset. Don't get carried away by my name - Javed Akhtar. I am not revealing a secret, I am saying something that I have said many times, in writing or on TV, in public. I am an atheist, I have no religious beliefs. And obviously I don't believe in spirituality of some kind. Some kind.

Another thing. I am not standing here to criticize, analyze, or attack this gentleman who is sitting here. We have a very pleasant, civilized relation. I have always found him to be an extremely courteous person.

One is talking about an idea, an attitude, a mindset. Not any individual. I must tell you that when Rajeev opened this session, for a moment I felt that I have come to the wrong place. Because, if we are discussing the philosophy of Krishna and Gautam and Kabir, Vivekanand, then I have nothing to say. I can sit down right now. I am not here to discuss a glorious past of which I suppose every Indian is proud, and rightly so. I am here to discuss a dubious present.

India Today has invited me and I have come here to talk of spirituality today. Let's not be confused by this word spirituality, you can find two people with the same name and they can be totally different people. Ram Charit Manas was written by Tulsidas. And the television film has been made by Ramanand Sagar. Ramayan is common but I don't think it would be very wise to club Tulsidas with Ramanand Sagar. I remember, when he had written Ramcharit Manas, he had faced a kind of a social boycott. How could he write a holy book in such a language like Avadhi? Sometimes I wonder fundamentalists of all hues and all colors, religions and communities. how similar they are. In 1798, a gentleman called Shah Abdul Qadir, in this very city, for the first time translated Quran in Urdu, and all the ulemas of that time gave fatwa against him that how could he translate this holy book in such a heathen language. When Tulsi wrote Ramcharit Manas and he was boycotted, I remember a chowpai that he had written.

"Dhut kaho abdhut kaho rajput kaho ki julawa kohu

Kohu ki beti se beta na biahab, kohu ki jaat bigaar na chahu

Mang ke khaibo, mehjid ma raihbo, lebe ka ek na debe ka dohu"

Ramanand Sagar, when he made his television serial, he made millions. I am not undermining him, but obviously he is much lower in the rung. I will give you another example. Perhaps it would be more direct and more appropriate. Gautam came out of a palace and went into wilderness to find the truth. But nowadays we see, the modern age gurus, come out of the wilderness and wind up in the palaces. They are moving in the opposite direction. We can't talk of them in the same breath. So let us not hide behind names which are dear and respectable for every Indian.

When I was invited to give this talk, I felt that yes, I am an atheist, try to be a rationalist in any given situation, Maybe that's why I have been called. But suddenly I have realized that there is another quality that I share with Modern Age gurus. I work in films. We have lot in common. Both of us, sell dreams, both of us create illusions, both of us create icons, but with a difference. After three hours we put a placard - the end. Go back to reality. They don't.

So ladies and gentlemen, let me make it very clear that I have come to talk of this spirituality that has a supermarket in the world. Arms, drugs and spirituality - these are the three big businesses in the world. But in arms and drugs you really have to do something, give something. That's the difference. Here you don't have to give anything.

In this supermarket you get instant Nirvana, Moksha by mail, a crash course in self realization, cosmic consciousness in four easy lessons. This supermarket has its chain all over the world, where the restless elite buy spiritual fast food. I am talking about this spirituality.

Plato in his dialogues has said many a wise thing, and one of them is - before starting any discussion decide on the meanings of words. Let us try to decide on the meaning of this word spirituality. Does it mean love for mankind that transcends all religion, caste, creed, race? Is that so? Then I have no problem. Except that I call it humanity. Does it mean love of plants, trees, mountains, oceans, rivers, animals? The non-human world? If that is so, again I have no problem at all. Except that I call it environmental consciousness. Does spirituality mean heartfelt regard for social institutions like marriage, parenthood, fine arts, judiciary, freedom of expression. I have no problem again sir, how can I disagree here? I call it civil responsibility. Does spirituality mean going into your own world trying to understand the meaning of your own life? Who can object on that? I call it self-introspection, self assessment. Does spirituality mean Yoga? Thanks to Patanjali, who has given us the details of Yoga, Yam, Yatam, aasan, pranayam. We may do it under any name, but if we are doing pranayam, wonderful. I call it health-care. Physical fitness.

Now is it a matter of only semantics. If all this is spirituality, then what is the discussion. All these words that I have used are extremely respectable and totally acceptable words. There is nothing abstract or intangible about them. So why stick to this word spirituality? What is there in spirituality that has not been covered by all these words? Is there something? If that is so then what is that?

Somebody in return can ask me what is my problem with this word. I am asking to change it, leave it, drop it, make it obsolete but why so? I will tell you what is my reservation. If spirituality means all this then there is no discussion. But there is something else which makes me uneasy. In a dictionary, the meaning of spirituality is rooted in a word called "spirit". When mankind didn't know whether this earth is round or flat, he had decided that human beings are actually the combination of two things. Body and spirit. Body is temporary, it dies. But the spirit is, shall I say, non-biodegradable. In your body you have a liver and heart and intestines and the brain, but since the brain is a part of the body, and mind lies within the brain, it is inferior because ultimately the brain too shall die with the body, but don't worry, you are not going to die, because you are your spirit, and the spirit has the supreme consciousness that will remain, and whatever problem you have is because you listen to your mind. Stop listening to your mind. Listen to your spirit - the supreme consciousness that knows the cosmic truth. All right. It's not surprising that in Pune there is an ashram and I used to go there. I loved the oratory. On the gate of the lecture hall there was a placard. Leave your shoes and minds here. There are other gurus who don't mind if you carry your shoes. But minds?. sorry.

Now, if you leave your mind what do you do? You need the Guru to find the next station of consciousness. That hides somewhere in the spirit. He has reached the supreme consciousness, he knows the supreme truth. But can he tell you. No sir, he cannot tell you. So can you find out on your own? No sir, you need the guru for that. You need him but he cannot guarantee that you will know the ultimate truth. and what is that ultimate truth? What is the cosmic truth? Relating to cosmos? I have really not been able to understand that. The moment we step out of the solar system the first star is Alpha Centuari. It is just four light years away. How do I relate to that!! What do I do!! So the emperor is wearing robes that only the wise can see. And the emperor is becoming bigger and bigger. And there are more and more wise people who are appreciating the robe.

I used to think that actually spirituality is the second line of defence for the religious people. When they get embarrassed about traditional religion, when it starts looking too down-market, they hide behind this smokescreen of cosmos and super consciousness. But that is not the complete truth. Because the clientele of traditional religion and spirituality is different. You take the map of the world, you start marking places which are extremely religious, within India or outside India, Asia, Latin America, Europe. wherever. You will find that wherever there is lot of religion there is lack of human rights. There is repression. Anywhere. Our Marxist friends used to say that religion is the opium of poor masses, the sigh of the oppressed. I don't want to get into that discussion. But spirituality nowadays is definitely the tranquilizer of the rich.

You see that the clientele is well heeled, it is the affluent class. Alright, so the guru gets power, high self esteem, status, wealth.(which is not that important), power. and lot of wealth too. What does the disciple get? When I looked at them carefully I realized that there are categories and categories of these disciples. It's not a monolith. There are different kinds of followers. Different kinds of disciples. One, who is rich, successful, doing extremely well in his life, making money, gaining property. Now, since he has everything he wants absolution too. So guru tells him - whatever you are doing, is "niskaam karma" - you are playing a role, this is all "Maya", the money that you are making everyday and the property that you are acquiring, you are not emotionally involved with it. You are just playing a role. You come to me because you are in search of eternal truth. Maybe your hands are dirty, but your spirit and soul are pure. And this man, he starts feeling wonderful about himself. For seven days he is exploiting the world, and at the end of the seven days when he goes and sits at the feet of the guru, he feels - I am a sensitive person.

There is another category. That too comes from the affluent class. But he is not the winner like the first one. You know winning or losing that is also relative. A rickshaw-wallah if he is gambling on the pavement and wins hundred rupees will feel victorious, and if a corporate man makes only 300 million dollars, while his brother is a billionaire, he will feel like a failure. Now, what does this rich failure do? He needs a guru to tell him - who says that you have failed? You have other worlds, you have another vision, you have other sensibility that your brother doesn't have. He thinks that he is successful. wrong. The world is very cruel, you know. The world tells you honestly, no sir, you have got three out of ten. The other person has seven out of ten. Fair. They will treat you that way and they will meet you that way. There he gets compassion. There he plays another game.

Another category. And I will talk about this category not with contempt or with any sense of superiority, not any bitterness, but all the compassion available one that is a very big client of this modern day guru and today's spirituality, is the unhappy rich wife.

Here is a person who put all her individuality, aspirations and dreams, and her being at the altar of marriage and in return she got an indifferent husband. Who at the most gave her a couple of children. Who is rather busy with his work, or busy with other women. This woman needs a shoulder. She knows that she is an existential failure. There is nothing to look forward to. She has a vacuous, empty, comfortable yet purposeless life. It's sad, but it is true.

Then there are other people. Who are suddenly traumatized. They lose a child. The wife dies. The husband dies. Or they lose the property, they lose their business. Something happens that shocks them and they ask - why me? So who do they ask? They go to the Guru. And the guru tells him that this is Karma. But there is another world if you follow me. Where there is no pain. Where there is no death. Where there is immortality. Where there is only bliss. He tells all these unhappy souls - follow me and I will take you to the heaven, to the paradise, where there is no pain. I am sorry sir, it is disappointing but true that there is no such paradise. Life will always have a certain quota of pain, of hurts, a possibility of defeats. But they do get some satisfaction.

Somebody may ask me if they are feeling better, if they are getting peace then what is your problem. It reminds me of a story that I have read. It's an old Indian story told by a sage, that a hungry dog finds a dry bone and tries to eat it and in the process bites its own tongue. And the tongue is bleeding and the dog feels that he is getting nourishment from the bone.

I feel sad. I don't want them, these adults, to behave like this because I respect them. Drugs and alcohol are also supposed to give mental peace and serenity, but is that kind of piece or serenity desirable or advisable? The answer is no. Any mental peace that is not anchored in rational thoughts is nothing but self-deception. Any serenity that takes you away from truth is just an illusion - a mirage. I know that there is a kind of a security in this which is like the security of a tri-cycle. If you are riding a tri-cycle you can't fall. But adults do not ride tricycles. They ride bi-cycles. They can even fall. It is a part of life.

There is one more kind. Like everybody who is the member of the golf club is not fond of golf. In the same way everybody who is seen in an ashram is not a spiritual person. A film producer who is an ardent follower of a guru, whose ashram is about two hours from Delhi once told me that you must go to my Guru. You will see the who's who of Delhi there. Let me tell you my Guruji is another Chandraswami in the making. Now this is a contact point for networking.

I have great respect for people who are spiritual, or religious, and in spite of this they are good people. And I have a reason. I believe that like every emotion or feeling, you have a limitation.

I am feeling slightly pressurized about time, can I get another five six minutes please. may I sir. Rajiv Mehrotra "yes you can"

You can see up to a point. And you can't see further. You can hear up to a point, but beyond that you won't be able to register sounds. You can mourn up to a point and then you will get over your mourning. You will feel happy up-to a point and then you will be through with your happiness. Same way, I am sure that you have a certain capacity for nobility also. You can be as noble and no more. Now suppose if we count this capacity for nobility in the average man as ten units, now anybody who goes to pray in a mosque five times is consuming his five units, there anybody who goes to the temple or sits in the feet of the Guru, he is consuming his quota of nobility there. And in a totally non-productive manner. I don't go to pray. I don't pray. If I don't go to any guru, or mosque or temple or church, what do I do with my quota of nobility. I will have to help somebody, feed somebody, give shelter to somebody. People who use their quota in worshiping, praying, adoring religious figures and spiritual figures, in spite of that, if they are left with some nobility, hats off to them.

You may ask me, that if I have this kind of ideas about religious people, why should I show such reverence for Krishna and Kabir and Gautam? You can ask me. I'll tell you why I respect them. These were the great contributors in the human civilization. They were born in different points of time in history, in different situations. But one thing is common in them. They stood up against injustice. They fought for the downtrodden. Whether it was Ravana, or Kansa or the pharaoh or the high priests or the British Samrajya in front of Gandhi - or the communal empire of Firoze Tughlaq in the times of Kabir, they stood against that.

And what surprises me, and confirms my worst feelings, that today, the enlightened people who know the cosmic truth, none of them stand up against the powers that be. None of them raises his voice against the ruling classes and the privileged classes. Charity, yes, when it is approved and cleared by the establishment and the powers that be. But I want to know which was that guru which took the dalits to those temples which are still closed to them. I want to know which was that guru who stood for the rights of the Adivasis against the thekedaars and contractors. I want to know which was that guru who spoke about the victims of Gujarat and went to their relief camps. They are human beings.

Sir. It is not enough to teach the rich how to breathe. It is the rich mans recreation. It is the hypocrites' pretension. It is a mischievous deception. And you know that in the oxford dictionary, mischievous deception is a term that is used for a word, and that word is. HOAX. Thank you.

Right OR Wrong To share a Quote? Answered

We had a good discussion about sharing quotes on Facebook. Below, I have tried to summarise the discussion (click here to read through the discussion).

The discussion started when a quote was published on facebook, trying to understand if the quote was well understood before it was posted by the poster. Later on, It was told that sharing someone's quote is not a right things to do. After a long discussion on "Is it right or Wrong?" we have found that

Without understanding the very meaning of the quote sharing a quote on facebook is not right. One must understand and make sure he shares his personal understanding of the quote OR his intention of quoting along with the quote.

Many a times, it might also be possible that after understanding the concept, we might as well want to simplify it, understandable to common man. This way, we are ensuring that the thoughts of the reader are in-line with the thoughts of ourselves when the quote is read.

Please comment under this article if I have missed out something

Quoting on facebook status, is it right? OR is it wrong?

People share a lot of things via facebook status message. Many people also share certain statemens which were told once by well know philosophers, scientists, celebraties and so on. Some of them share their personal problems direclty some of them indirectly. Some simply post for fun, some with a real intension. Whatever, might be the intension, is it right to quote someone on a forum like facebook? was the question raised.

There were two answers to the question which led to a healthy argument.
1. No, it is not fine to quote.
2. Yes, it is fine to quote.

Arguments supporting "No, It is not fine to quote":

Without understanding the inner meaning of the statement quoted, if someone quotes it, the statement will loose its value. One must not quote, rather must introspect and practice before they say anything. So, if you really want to live a meaningful life "DO NOT FOLLOW", because you have not gone through what they have gone through. First you experience, do something in life then people would listen.

Argument supporting "Yes, It is fine to quote":

Accepting the argument of "understanding the quote before posting", yet rejecting that the statement will loose its value based on ignorant posting. The arguers supports this rejection by considering the person who de-value the statement based on the ignorant's posting as "not open". The argument further continues by noting the difference between "gifted" and "not gifted"

To someone who is gifted with observational capabilities and intelligence that are enough to formulate his/her own path and purpose of life; "DO NOT FOLLOW" does make sense. But on the other hand, for common man who is not gifted with these qualities for unknown reason, will need a supporting wall to stand up and learn walking, OR they will need a teacher to teach them. So, for a common man "DO FOLLOW INITIALLY" should be the formula.

SHANTI MANTRA - MEANING

Hello Every, Comment on this please

COW SLAUGHTER

It is told that Rishis and Munis of ancient times used to eat non vegetarian food. Gradually they learnt something which made them move away from eating flesh and eat only Green leaves and vegetables. The answer hinges on the fact that Lot of energy is required for human digestive system for the process of digestion. If you have keenly observed, people feel drowsy after having lunch or dinner. The very reason for this is, digestive system uses most of energy available depriving brain form the part it need to keep itself active, forcing it to go to hibernation.

A non-vegetarian food takes more then 8 hours to complete its digestion, hence, for 8+ hours activities of brain will be less as compared to its normal activities making the person more lethargic. Might be this was the reason rishis and munis went away from non-vegetarian food.

So, now the debatable topic is "should we eat nonveg?". If yes, "Should we also kill COW for its flesh?" Now the cow is making news for a different reason in India. Recently the BJP government in Karnataka had proposed a anti-cattle slaughter bill. Should it be passed? Should it not be passed?

Vote your opinion with justification

Un-answered GOD ... Continued .......

We discussed many things in the previous blog post. Interesting conclusions opened up. At the same time interesting questions came out. Many people have already summarized in a nicer way in the comments itself, and I need not put more effort. I shall do a copy past of couple of summary done.

Summary by Arya:
1) GOD is ever existing
2) GOD manifests himself in all the creations
3) GOD is omnipresent
4) An apparent/non-apparent form of GOD takes birth/grows/sustains/dies and it is formed by the combination of pancha-mahabhutas(5 elements)
5) Any form that encapsulates GOD is temporal
6) GOD is an entity which is the witness to all the above mentioned forms
7) In fact GOD is inexplicable because in explaining him(which i am doing now) I am applying my thoughts which itself is part of one of the above forms which is always prone to errors/bias/ignorance

Summary by GodCon:
GOD is :
1) ever existing (eternal), unborn, infinite, immutable aspect(sathyam, nityam, ajam, anantam, achyutam)
2) source of all energies, including life (kaaraNa sharira) (sarva kaaraNa kaaraNam)
3) source of everything that we see and know (similar to above but more at the object level; chara-achara prabhu)
3) the source, sustainer, and the final destination of everything (bhutakrit, bhutabrit, paramagatih); controller of everything (mayadhyaksehna prakritih suyate sacharacharam)
4) an infinitely intelligent being (discussed in the previous thread of discussion; Pious and GodCon)
5) the core / center of everything (sarvasya hridi sannivishTah)
6) controller / knower of past, present and future of beings (bhuta-bhavya-bhavat prabhuh)
7) He is beyond sensory perceptions, so can be understood (partially) through inference
8) all knowing (Omniscient; sarvagjna)
9) his energies are everywhere, inside and outside (sa-bhaaya-abhyantarah), and all energies comes from Him.

Defination of God In one line by Arlagada:
"Sarve jana sukhino bhavantu" –

I agree with Arlagada on this aspect.

We all do things to keep ourselves happy at the end of the day. We love our mothers because we are happy by doing so, we participate in blog because we are happy by doing so. In this way, every work we do in this karma bhoomi is for happiness (sukha). A sanyasi also is happy by being a sanyasi. So, Happiness itself is “GOD” and veda’s and all scriptures say one thing that is “Sarve jana sukhino bhavantu” meaning “let everyone be happy” OR let every one be one in GOD.

There is now a anomaly again between dvaita and advaita. You are invited to participate under this article

Un-Answered GOD!

A wonderful discussion about What/Who is God? went on in a more mature and more orderly manner than previous. I personally learnt a lot out of this discussion. I would like to summarize about what we have deduced till today about GOD.

Every thing that is born has death; Earth, Sun, other planets, Humans, Animals, Dream and many other such things are the examples. Extrapolating this to the universe, we see that, there must be one such thing that has no birth, from which everything originated. Many people gave an example of Singularity supporting this concept. We also went till Big Bang and came back. We all accepted that, this entity will be called as GOD. Once we deduced the existence of God, we moved on for the next question, i.e. What/Who is God?

Deducing the existence of God we knew that we had actually already deduced one of the main properties of God, i.e. “ever existing” nature of God. Further we also had proved the omnipresent of God. We defined him as Creator, Sustainer and destructor. Later on, something very interesting happened in the discussion. The discussion introduced two terms called "Atma" and "Paramaatma". Various people participating in this blog post had various stances to take about the relationship between these two. This lead the discussion to boil down to two great philosophies that has existed from ages, Dvaita and Advaita. I shall try to do some justice to this summary by writing down the list of difference and arguments made by participants about these two philosophies.

Argument 1:
Dvaita - Atma and Paramaatma are two separate entities yet the same.
1. Example: Fire and spark are different yet the same
2. Example: Atma (Jivaatma) maintains its individuality and yet is moving towards attaining Paramaatma. Paramaatma is independent

Argument 2:
Advaita - Atma and Paramaatma are never different, but look different because of "Maya".
1. Example: Just like one feels his existence in a dream is true while seeing the dream, we are all feeling this existence itself as true. But, is a illusion caused by Maya whose scope is between birth and death
2. Example: Just like you see a rope as a snake in darkness, you see Souls as infinite because of Maya.

"Maya" - we also saw people defined Maya in two ways

1. MAYA (illusion) - This is because of the five characters of a Purusha(Material body of a living creature). The five characters are 1. Desire, 2. Anger, 3. Selfish, 4. Pride, 5. Jealousy. However, the 1st one is the core reason for the rest and for more emotions if any.

2. MAYA - this is not because of Five Characters but five characters are because of Maya (illusion). Maya can also be ignorance.

Some Common consensus:
1. We also saw that people came to one consensus about the relation between Atma and Paramaatma. Just like house cannot be called as brick, even though it’s made of bricks. A forest cannot be called as tree even though it’s made of trees. The only thing that differs is the scope. A tree can give shelter to few birds; a forest can give shelter to many living creatures. A brick can give shelter to few ants; a house can give shelter to many humans. Similarly, a soul is just differing from super soul with the scope alone.
2. Atma and Pramaatma have same nature. i.e Soul has three basic aspects as part of its nature - Sat (eternity; truth), Cit (knowledge potency), and Ananda (blissfulness).

Other Discussion:
1. Eternal truth and truth.
2. Knowledge and Ignorance.
3. The ari-shad-vargas (kama, krodha, moha, lobha, madha, maatsarya).

Later, we saw that none of these arguments were leading to question asked, i.e Where/Who is God? We were discussing here on this blog assuming that Atma and Paraamtma exist, but we have never deduced these or defined these.

Few Un-Answered questions that came out of this discussion:
1. If god has created everything, and if Paramaatam is God, what is paramaatma and how does it explain the creation?
2. Is God Energy?
3. Is God Matter?
4. Can Atma be defined? If yes, how?
5. What is that which thinks?
6. Who am I?

The last post says answering “Who am I”
"a person says "I am blind", "I am happy", "I am fat" etc. The common and constant factor, which permeates all these statements is the "I" which is but the Immutable Atman.
That "I" itself is all "Atman, Jivatman, Brahman, Paramatman, GOD"

Lastly, I invite you people to continue discussion under this blog post. Let us all try to put some light on these above stated aspects. Many of my friends and subordinates read this discussion and were impressed by the way the discussion is proceeding, probably this one among very vey few blogs were valuable discussion has happened. All the participants of the blog have put there views and applied there minds with an un-emotional and un-attached way. A healthy discussion is possible only when the participants are OPEN MINDS and EGOLESS with there ideas. I can also say, this discussion is not affected by ari-shad-vargas (kama, krodha, moha, lobha, madha, maatsarya).

LET THERE BE LIGHT

What/Who is GOD?...... Second question to answer......

We have had a beautiful, yet high temperature discussion in our previous post DOES GOD REALLY EXIST?. Here is my summary of the discussion.

1. GOD EXISTS: If some one sees / knows God and is convinced, for that person there may not have any NEED to participate in this discussion. For those who have not seen God, theist or an atheist, the first means of acquiring knowledge - direct perception - has not worked. So, as next best option, he/she has to attempt to use the second means of acquiring knowledge (infer) about existence/non existence of God based on the observation. A theist infers positively about God observing the manifestation.

Any rational person who observes this creation (existence of the universe) - its complexity, its structure, coordination and beauty - makes an attempt to identify its cause (the sustaining principle behind it). As there is a potter behind the creation of a visible pot, A "theist", says "there could be a God behind the creation (or sustenance) of this universe.

2. GOD is the creator & GOD is an ever existing aspect, we can logically deduce that, there should have existed an infinite aspect that should have existed for ever, if not then, that again will have an origin. So the source of all infinites should be an aspect that has ever existed, which was never created but is the source of all creation (anadih adih). That which is the source of everything, that from which everything must have come.

3. Everything originates from GOD
"God: Is the source of everything we have and know; from whom EVERYTHING comes."

4. Everything ends/annihilates into GOD
since creator manifests in all the creation, sustainer and annihilator must be manifestation of creator.

5. How do we infer manifestation of GOD/Omnipresence of GOD?
God has no raw material to create the world. So he has two options
1. Create from nothing
2. Create from him

ruling out option 1; we know that world is created by God using himself.

6. Consciousness cannot be god for following reasons
1. The action performed in the aware state of mind is present
2. Present is the only state where there is no thought.
3. Past and future are just thoughts and nothing else.
4. Your present action is dependent always on your past thought to gain some future result. By this we know that consciousness is dependent on Sub-Consciousness, hence the later is supreme to the former. Thus, that kicks consciousness out of the game.

7. Is Sub-consciousness GOD?
Arguments thats says NO:
1) SC is subjective, confined to individuals. If it is accepted as God then we will have more than a billion Gods.
2) SC cannot explain creation; how does cosmos exist? How life exists? How things are in place? Etc
3) SC pertains to mind and I have shown that there are aspects that are higher than mind (which I have shown, unless someone has other theory to explain).
4) I have also shown that if SC is accepted as God then creation can be argued to be a mere imagination of the mind.
5) If Sub-Consciousness is GOD, the entire universe is just imagination, because SC is just a thought, knowledge.

Arguments that says YES:
1. SC (Knowledge from experience) is something which exists in all the creatures.
2. Pragnanaam Brahma (Knowledge is GOD), and knowledge is only by your past action, and past action is experience. Hence, going back knowledge gained by past (Sub-Consciousness) is GOD.
3. SC is not Subjective, It overlaps with the sub-consciousness of other creatures and hence universal.
4. SC can explain creation. If GOD is the creator, he should have knowledge about the creation, knowledge is SC, and hence GOD has SC, which is manifested in various forms in various creatures. All this individual SC’s merge to form a Universal SC which is GOD Consciousness OR Pure Consciousness OR just GOD.
5. If people say, just because, SC is Knowledge and hence the world is imagination, so be it. existence, It’s been called as “Maya” since Vedic times.

These are some of the major arguments which I have observed in the previous blog post. However, we have also seen people who are bringing science and supporting the philosophical argument. Ultimately, What I see is, everyone are in consensus with the the “Existence of GOD”. The next question that arises is “Who/What is GOD?”

I was discussing with some of my friends, as to, how the discussion should proceed now on about, “What/Who is GOD?”. This is what we thought, and I would like to share my view about the way the discussion should continue.

First of all, we should Identify and come to one consensus about the list of Characteristics thats an entity called GOD possesses, Just like Omnipresent, Infinite, Every existing and so on… After come to consensus, we will take up individual concepts like Sub-Consciousness, Consciousness, Matter and Energy, Black hole, Big bang and stuff like that, and try to see if the concepts satisfy all the listed characters, something like a check list. The one that satisfies all those will be called GOD.

I invite you discuss under this Article.

DOES GOD REALLY EXIST?

IDOL WORSHIP: Different minds have different thoughts, but every thought that’s in the minds of mass will ultimately boil down to two fundamental questions

• Is Idol worship right?
• Is idol worship wrong?

Once up a time a king who did not believe in idol worship asked his intelligent minister to explain him “What makes idol worship important?” one of king’s Intelligent minister called one of king’s guards and ordered him to bring the painting of king to king’s court. After the painting was brought in front of the court, minister asked the guard to spit on the painting of king. Struck between what is right and what is wrong, the guard responded immediately “How can I spit on my master, my king”. IDOL-YES are those who think on these lines and substitute GOD in the place of King. “We have faith in GOD and his idol both” is one of the many arguments by IDOL-YES.

“GOD is everywhere; he is formless, tasteless, and omnipotent. In such a case there is no reason for a idol, we just need to have faith and honest in our approach, we need not go to temples and go around a stone of a human or some other form to prove that we are having faith in GOD”. This one of many counter argument made by second set of people whom I have called as IDOL-NO

What we observe here is, IDOL-YES define GOD as a form, while IDOL-NO define GOD as formless. As a disinterested observer the question that comes in my mind is

DOES GOD REALLY EXIST?