Vasu Murti

Articles
The Writings of Vasu Murti

Human Rights - Social Justice - Animal Rights - Peace - Love - Compassion - Kindness - Gentleness - Religion - Soul - Spirit - Knowledge - Wisdom - Politics - Science - Environment - Vegan - Vegetarian - God - Humans - Animals

| Home | Books | Publications | Articles | Email |

Atheism, Science, and Theology

I watched the ten minute atheistic video, "Your Religion is a Fairy Tale. Wake up." 
 
I'm not impressed.
 
1. The video claimed God is a fictitious idea - an invention of the human mind to fill in the gaps science cannot yet explain.
 
Since the time of Newton, science has held that all phenomena can be described (at least in principle) in terms of measurable quantities that can be calculated using simple mathematical laws. This premise, the principle of reductionism, implies that reality is essentially simple and that human beings, through the power of the mind and senses alone, may ultimately be able to fully understand the nature and origin of all phenomena in the universe. 
 
Even though the principle of reductionism is certainly unprovable to start with, it has provided the underlying strategy for scientific research, and as scientists have gone from one success to another, their faith in the universal applicability of this principle has grown stronger and stronger. 
 
Scientists traditionally reject supernatural explanations of the origins of the universe, especially ones involving a Supreme Person who creates it, saying that these explanations would contradict their scientific method.
 
In their mechanistic world view, God, if He exists at all, is reduced to the role of a petty servant who merely winds up the clock of the universe. Thereafter, He has no choice but to allow everything to happen according to physical laws. This makes these laws, in effect, more powerful than God Himself.
 
Or else God becomes simply a formless universal energy. There is definitely not much room for a personal God, a supreme designer and controller, in the universe described by the big bang theorists. Erwin Schrodinger, the Nobel-prize winning Austrian theoretical physicist who discovered the basic equation of quantum mechanics, states in Mind and Matter, "No personal God can form part of a world model that has only become accessible at the cost of removing everything personal from it."
 
Thus we should not think that it is by their empirical findings that scientists have found God doesn't exist. Rather, their method of understanding the universe rules out God from the very start. 
 
The scientists' attempt to understand the origin of the universe in purely physical terms is based on three assumptions:
 
a) that all phenomena can be completely explained by natural laws expressed in the language of mathematics,
 
b) that these physical laws apply everywhere and at all times, and
 
c) that the fundamental natural laws are simple.
 
Many people take these assumptions for granted, but they have not been proven to be facts -- nor is it possible to easily prove them. 
 
They are simply part of one *strategy* for approaching reality. 
 
Looking at the complex phenomena that confront any observer of the universe, scientists have decided to try a reductionistic approach. They say, "Let's try to reduce everything to measurements and try to explain them by simple, universal physical laws." 
 
But there is no logical reason for ruling out in advance alternative strategies for comprehending the universe, strategies that might involve laws and principles of irreducible complexity. Yet many scientists, confusing their strategy for trying to understand the universe with the actual nature of the universe itself, rule out a priori any such alternative approaches. They insist that the universe can be completely described by simple mathematical laws. 
 
"We hope to explain the entire universe in a single, simple formula that you can wear on your t-shirt," says Leon Lederman, director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois.
 
There are several reasons why the scientists feel compelled to adopt their strategy of simplification. If the underlying reality of the universe can be described by simple quantitative laws, then there is some chance that they can understand it (and manipulate it), even considering the limitations of the human mind. So they assume it can be thus described and invent a myriad of theories to do this. 
 
But if the universe is infinitely complex, it would be impossible for us to understand it with the limited powers of the human mind and senses. And of course the scientists' strategy will also be unsuccessful in coping with features of the universe that cannot be described in mathematical terms at all. We can't really go back billions of years in time to the origin of the universe, and we have practically no firsthand evidence at all of anything beyond our own solar system.
 
At this point, we may ask why scientists persist in their attempt to find strictly mechanistic explanations. One answer is that they feel committed to their present reductionist strategy, which is to explain everything -- from galaxies to bacteria -- in terms of matter acting according to basic, simple laws of physics. Rejecting the possibility of any other approach to science, they fear that to deviate even slightly from their strategy would lead to the end of science as they know it.
 
Thus it is not any wonder that the great majority of scientists cling so tenaciously to their present strategy to the exclusion of all other approaches. They could well be like the man who lost his car keys in his driveway and went to look for them by the streetlight, where the light was better.
 
One of the greatest problems faced by the big bang theorists is that although they are attempting to explain the "origin of the universe," the origin they propose is mathematically indescribable. According to the standard big bang theories, the initial condition of the universe was a point of infinitesimal circumference and infinite density and temperature. An initial condition such as this is beyond mathematical description. Nothing can be said about it. All calculations go haywire. Technically, such a phenomenon is called a "singularity."
 
Any explanation of the origin of the universe that begins with something physically indescribable is certainly open to question. And then there is the question: Where did the singularity come from?
 
Here the scientists face the same question as the religionists they taunt with the question, "Where did God come from?"
 
And just as the religionist responds with the answer that God is the causeless cause of all causes, the scientists are now faced with the prospect of declaring a mathematically indescribable point of infinite density and infinitesimal size, existing before all conceptions of time and space, as the causeless cause of all causes.
 
At this point, the hapless scientist stands convicted of the same unforgivable intellectual crime that he has always accused the saints and mystics of committing -- making physically unverifiable supernatural claims! 
 
If he is to know anything at all about the origins of the universe, it would seem he would now have to consider the possibility of accepting methods of inquiry and experiment transcending the physical.
 
2. Dr. Huston Smith, author of The Religions of Man, points out that:
 
a) Science is now our sacral mode of knowing.
 
b) The crux of science is the controlled experiment. 
 
c) But we can only control what is inferior to us.
 
Therefore, science can only reveal what is inferior to us. If there are beings superior to ourselves -- disembodied beings, angels, God -- it is they who will dance circles around us, not we them. They know more than we do, and will walk into our experiments if they choose to; otherwise not.
 
Dr. Huston Smith likens the scientific method to a flashlight. When we point it downward towards the path we are walking on its beam is clear and bright. If we point it horizontally at persons around us, the image is not as clear. Dr. Huston Smith likens this to psychology and the social sciences and the study of other human beings, which can't be precisely measured and quantified like chemistry and physics. Finally (to complete the analogy) if we tilt the flashlight skyward -- or towards the heavens -- nothing. This, of course, does not prove that there *are* things in the heavens, but it does argue that *if* there are, science will never disclose them.
 
The scientists / atheists have have closed their minds to the possibility of higher beings and are merely studying that which is inferior to us.
 
3. Vaishnava theology can explain some of the questions raised by skeptics.
 
The video asks who created the universe? If you say, "God created the universe," then who created God? If you say "God has always existed," why not just save a step and say the universe has always existed?
 
In one sense, the universe *has* always existed. It has merely transformed. In his 1980 PBS miniseries Cosmos, Dr. Carl Sagan noted that Hinduism is the only world religion in which the time scales of the age of the universe (billions of years!) correspond to those of modern science. And we similarly believe in oscillating universes being repeatedly created and destroyed over cycles of time over billions of years.
 
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada gave the example of raw materials from the earth being transformed into a skyscraper. The materials existed before the skyscraper, they were merely transformed into a building, which will eventually decay or be dismantled at some point in the future. Similarly, the material universe has always existed, but it is merely being repeatedly created and destroyed over time, because everything in the material world is temporary (transitory). But the material energy from which the universe is created / destroyed has always existed. This is consistent with the law of conservation of mass and energy: mass can neither be created nor destroyed though it may be rearranged.
 
4. Some of the objections raised in the video are *theological* and not scientific.
 
The video asks which is the true God: Yahweh or Allah, without considering the possibility that they are the same God! 
 
Devotees have given an example to show how "Krishna" is the most intimate name of God. Take, for example, the president of a company. His relationship with others will differ with each individual. To his employees, he's addressed respectfully as "Mr. Smith." To his friends, it's "Jim." The more intimate the relationship, the more intimate the term to address him: "daddy," "darling," "dear," etc.
 
Hayagriva dasa (Professor Howard Wheeler) similarly told Srila Prabhupada that many people viewed Jesus differently, just as many viewed Krishna differently.
 
Both Jesus and John the Baptist were considered prophets by the people. (Matthew 11:9, 21:11, 21:26, 21:46; Mark 6:15, 11:32; Luke 7:16, 7:26, 9:19, 24:19; John 4:19, 6:14, 7:40, 9:17) Jesus placed himself in the tradition of the prophets before him. (Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24, 13:33; John 4:44) He frequently compared his ministry to the ministries of Noah, Lot and Jonah. (Matthew 10:15, 11:24, 12:39-40, 16:4, 24:37-39; Luke 10:12, 11:29,32, 17:26-29,32)
 
Similarly, many of the minor gods and goddesses in the Hindu pantheon have their equivalent in the Greek and Roman pantheons. So Indra becomes Zeus and Brihaspati becomes Jupiter. 
 
Srila Prabhupada himself said that nature worship is a precursor to God worship: that even primitive aborigines will offer obeisances when seeing a bolt of lightning in the sky. As one progresses in one's knowledge of God, one's understanding deepens. The different levels of God realization (brahman, paramatma, bhagavan) are described in Atma magazine this way:
 
One sees a train from a distance merely as a bright light. As the train approaches, one can see its shape. When the train arrives, one can meet the persons on board the train, etc.
 
Srila Prabhupada even likened the Christian Trinitarian concept of God to the Vaishnava doctrine of the Three Aspects of God: bhagavan (God almighty; the Father); paramatma ("higher self"; God within one’s heart, as the divine observer and judge of all our activities); and brahman ("Spirit"; the omnipresent Spirit of God).
 
Badri Narayan dasa (Robert Morrill) gave an example: 
 
The sun exists occupies a particular place as the sun globe. But through its rays, its energies, heat and light, are spread everywhere. When you wake up in the morning and sunlight comes streaming through your window into your room, you know the sun is present, even if you aren't seeing the sun globe itself directly present before you.
 
Similarly, God has His personal form (as Bhagavan, or the Lord), but also His omnipresent Spirit (Brahman), and is personally present alongside each conscious self in the physical body as an observer (paramatma, or higher self).
 
A Western text, India: Yesterday and Today, similarly says Hinduism includes everything "from the animistic awe of the powers of nature to the veneration of moral values in human form (incarnations of God) into a comprehensive expression of the divine."
 
But arguing against a belief in God due to apparently conflicting religions is *theological* and NOT scientific!
 
5. My appreciation for the world religions is *theological*!
 
Scholars *have* noted many similarities between the stories of Krishna and Jesus, and the early Indologists, British missionaries, etc. concluded that Christian missionaries must have visited India centuries earlier, and the gospel stories were mixed in with the "legends" of Krishna, whom they regarded as a mythical figure, like Hercules or Apollo. Their theory was discarded when they realized the worship of Krishna predates Christianity by centuries, if not millennia!
 
At any rate, my appreciation of Christianity, like that of other Krishna devotees, is *theological*, rather than cultural or historical. In 1994, bhaktin Sue Love of Media, PA, suggested I read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, saying some of his words are "stunningly Vaishnava" and she said she was beginning to wonder if C.S. Lewis and Srila Prabhupada "did lunch" !
 
“If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”
 
--C.S. Lewis
 
The New Testament distinguishes between the carnal and the spiritual. “It is the Spirit that giveth the body life,” taught Jesus, “the flesh profit nothing.” (John 6:63)
 
Paul taught Jesus had both an earthly and a spiritual nature (Romans 1:3), and referred to his own spiritual self. (Romans 1:9)
 
The spirit is a prisoner to sin and the flesh in a body doomed to death. (Romans 7:18-24) 
 
Christians are to behave in a spiritually, rather than in a fleshly way. (Romans 8:4; 13:14; I Peter 2:11)
 
The desires of the Spirit and those of the flesh are opposed to one another. (Galatians 5:13,16-17)
 
Christians have “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires;” they “live by the Spirit” and are “directed by the Spirit.” (Galatians 5:19-26)
 
To be carnally minded is to die. One must transcend one's lower, bodily nature. (Rom. 8:5-14) Saving the spirit of an individual differs from the destruction of the person’s flesh. (I Corinthians 5:5)
 
God’s kingdom is not carnal, but spiritual:
 
“...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither does the perishable inherit the imperishable... For this perishable must put on imperishability and this mortal must put on immortality. (I Corinthians 15:50,53)
 
The body is like a lump of clay. (Romans 9:21; II Corinthians 4:7) The body decays, but the self is renewed in spiritual life. (II Corinthians 4:16-17)
 
The body is a temporary tent in which the spirit resides; the spirits of the faithful will soon be clothed in everlasting, heavenly bodies. (II Corinthians 5:1-3)
 
The spirit resides inside a body of flesh. (II Corinthians 10:3) To identify with the body is to be absent from the Lord. (II Corinthians 5:8-10)
 
Paul wrote of being “caught up as far as the third heaven...whether in the body or out of the body I do not know...” (II Corinthians 12:2-3)
 
Being with Christ differs from remaining “in the body;” one’s self is separate from the physical body. (Philippians 1:21-24)
 
Christians are to set their sights on heavenly, not earthly things, and to put to death their earthly nature. (Colossians 3:1-5)
 
The flesh decays, but the word of God is eternal. (I Peter 2:23-25) To love this world is to alienate oneself from God’s love, because the passions of this world are temporary. (I John 2:15-17) This world belongs to the devil (II Corinthians 4:4); this present world is evil (Galatians 1:4).
 
God rewards each individual according to his deeds. (Romans 2:6) One reaps what one sows. (II Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 6:7) Some souls remain entangled in decaying flesh, while others turn to the Spirit.
 
“The one who sows for his own flesh will harvest ruin from his flesh; while the one who sows for the Spirit will harvest eternal life from the Spirit.” (Galatians 6:8)
 
A kernel of spirit is placed in a body:
 
“...God gives it a body as He plans, and to each seed its particular body. All flesh is not the same; but one kind is human, another is animal, another is fowl, and another fish.” (I Corinthians 15:38-39)
 
The New Testament also distinguishes between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies:
 
“There are heavenly bodies and also earthly bodies; but the radiance of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly is another kind.” (I Corinthians 15:40)
 
Resurrection in the New Testament is NOT the Old Testament doctrine of the reassembling of dust into living bodies, but rather, the clothing of the spirit with a new body; the placing of a kernel of spirit into a new body, from where its existence continues.
 
The New Testament emphasizes the distinction between the soul and the body, the clothing of the soul with a new body, and the eternal nature of the soul and its relationship to God versus the temporary nature of the flesh and the material world.
 
These concepts can all be found in the doctrine of reincarnation.
 
--
 
"Neither love the world nor the things in the world. Whoever loves the world has not the Father's love in his heart, because everything in the world, the passions of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the proud display of life have their origin not from the Father but from the world. And the world with its lust passes away, but he who does the will of God abides forever." 
 
--II John 2:15-17
 
Thomas a Kempis wrote in his devotional classic, The Imitation of Christ:
 
"What do you seek here, since this world is not your resting place? Your true home is in Heaven; therefore remember that all things of this world are transitory. All things are passing, and yourself with them. See that you do not cling to them, lest you become entangled and perish with them. Let all your thoughts be with the Most High."
 
Like Christians, Vaishnavas also believe that souls in this world have fallen from grace, that this world is transitory, and that there is an inner conflict between one’s carnal and spiritual natures.
 
Srila Prabhupada drew an analogy between the biblical and Vaishnava teaching on the Fall from grace:
 
"When a living entity disobeys the orders of God, he is put into this material world, and that is his punishment... The real fact is that the living entity is eternal, and the material world is created to satisfy his false existence... The individual is thinking that he is independent and can act independent of God. That is the beginning of paradise lost, of Adam's fall.
 
"When Adam and Eve thought that they could do something independently, they were condemned. Every living entity is the eternal servant of God, and he must act according to the desire or will of the Supreme Lord. When he deviates from this principle, he is lost. Losing paradise, he comes into the material world... That is the process of transmigration, the rotation of the cycle of birth and death. This is all due to disobeying God... Having rebelled against the principles of God consciousness, we are cut off from our original position. We have fallen."
 
Following biblical tradition, St. Augustine made a distinction between the earthly and the heavenly, the flesh and bodily appetites versus the spirit and peace of the soul. Describing the predicament of the soul in a physical body in the material world, Augustine wrote:
 
"And so long as he is in this mortal body, he is a pilgrim in a foreign land, away from God; therefore he walks by faith, not by sight."
 
Augustine said the soul "needs divine direction, which he may obey with resolution, and divine assistance that he may obey it freely..." These doctrines are consistent with Vaishnava theology.
 
--
 
My friend Anantarupa dasa, who took his present birth in Ireland and who came to Krishna Consciousness from an Irish Catholic background, said we (Vaishnavas) have no quarrel with Christianity. Srila Prabhupada merely said the Christians should chant the names of God or the names of Christ found in their own religious tradition, and properly follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (extend their precepts of nonviolence to animals as well as humans).
 
"...In the Christian religion, Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God and to be coming from the kingdom of God to reclaim conditioned souls. As followers of Bhagavad-gita, we admit this claim to be true. So basically there is no difference of opinion. In details there may be differences due to differences in culture..."
 
--- Raja Vidya, Chapter Six
 
"...the Lord also, He is so compassionate, He sends His son, His most confidential son, Jesus Christ..."
 
--- Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, 1970
 
"...and you can develop so simply. You just hallow the name of the Lord. Jesus says, ‘hallowed be Thy name, my Father.’ And we are also hallowing the name of the Lord. We don’t even demand you say ‘ Krishna.’ You can say ‘ Jehovah.’ You can say ‘ Yahweh.’ You can chant the names of God..."
 
--- Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, 1972
 
"This is not to say that the Bible is nonsense. The Bible is the absolute truth. It is absolute truth that Lord Jesus Christ taught, but look at the people to whom he taught. They crucified him for teaching about God. He could not teach as great a depth."
 
---lecture, 1968
 
"Lord Jesus Christ preaches love of God, we are also preaching the same thing, love of God. But our process is little different.
 
---lecture, 1969
 
"...there is no contradiction between Jesus Christ’s description and our Vedic description. God is Supreme Father. That’s a fact."
 
---lecture, 1972
 
"We are presenting Krishna before you, and you take it. Most of the Western country, they are Christian. So the Christians believe in Lord Jesus Christ as son of God. But we are presenting the Father, God Himself. So there is no contradiction. If there is son, there must be..."
 
---lecture, 1972
 
"...we can chant combinedly. Where is the difficulty? So those who are professing Christianity, never mind. You have got the name of God. Otherwise, why Jesus recommended that ‘You glorify (hallow) the name of God’? That is chanting. So let us combinedly glorify the name of God. This is common platform."
 
---lecture, 1974
 
"Actually, one who is guided by Jesus Christ will certainly get liberation. But it is very hard to find a man who is actually being guided by Jesus Christ... violence is against the Bible’s injunctions. How can they kill if they are following the Bible?"
 
--- Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers
 
"Now the principle religions of the world—Hindu religion, Muslim religion, Christian religion, and Buddha religion—most of them believe some supreme authority or personality coming down from the kingdom of God. Just like in your Christian religion Lord Jesus Christ, he claimed to be the son of God and coming from the kingdom of God to reclaim you. So this claim of Lord Jesus Christ, we admit."
 
--- Bhagavad-gita lecture, 1966
 
"...accept the authorized bona fide spiritual master, acharya... You have to follow the footprints of acharya... Just like in your country, you are following the footprints of Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, that is the way. Or any acharya. Because the acharya, they come here to teach us about Krishna consciousness or God consciousness..."
 
--- Bhagavad-gita lecture, 1966
 
"...the Christian religion is very nice—if simply people have spiritual guides who help them to follow it perfectly. So many people have asked me, ‘Do you value Christianity?’ ‘Yes,’ I say, ‘If you faithfully follow your Christian religion, you will become perfect."
 
---Morning Walk, Geneva
June 6, 1974
 
Mr. O’Grady: "...when you say ‘Krishna consciousness’ is there any difference between that and Christ consciousness?."
 
Prabhupada: "No, there is no difference. Christ came to preach the message of God. If you actually become Christ conscious, you become Krishna conscious."
 
--- The Science of Self Realization
 
Ms. Nixon: "What is the difference between Krishna consciousness and Christ consciousness?"
 
Prabhupada: "Christ consciousness is also Krishna consciousness, but because at present people do not follow... the commandments of Jesus Christ—they do not come to the standard of God consciousness."
 
--- The Science of Self Realization
 
"...And similarly, in your Christian also, you worship Bible. So it is a fact that Lord Jesus Christ is present by his words, Bible. Similarly, Krishna is present by His words. These personalities, either God or son of God, who come from the transcendental world, they keep their transcendental identity without being contaminated by this material world..."
 
--- Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, 1967
 
"...That is the ultimate standard of knowledge, when one has fully surrendered unto Krishna, or God... like Lord Jesus Christ. He was fully surrendered unto God... he’s worshipped as good as God because he dedicated everything to God..."
 
--- Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, 1969
 
"If you love your neighbor as yourself, then why this ‘civilization’ which claims to be Christian, is slaughtering so many animals, and why they are constantly slaughtering each other in wars, in the streets? Jesus says you will not kill... and my spiritual master is giving love of God, he is giving love of God to the world."
 
--- Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, 1971
 
Professor Regamay: "But I am struck, that, for instance for the West the idea of a personal God is strongly rooted in our consciousness.
 
Prabhupada: "Yes. Lord Jesus Christ, he was Vaishnava. He directly gave you the idea of personal God. The personal God is the origin..."
 
"I think the Christian priests should cooperate with the Krishna consciousness movement. They should chant the name Christ... and should stop condoning the slaughter of animals. This program follows the teachings of the Bible, it is not my philosophy...
 
"Lord Jesus Christ exemplified this by teaching ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ But the Christians like to misinterpret this instruction. They think the animals have no soul, and therefore they think they can freely kill billions of innocent animals in the slaughterhouses. So although there are many persons who profess to be Christians, it would be very difficult to find one who strictly follows the instructions of Lord Jesus Christ."
 
--- The Science of Self Realization
 
"But Jesus Christ never said that he is God. He said ‘son of God.’ We have no objection to chanting the holy name of Jesus Christ. We are preaching, ‘Chant the holy name of God.’ If you haven’t got any name of God, then you can chant our conception of the name of God, Krishna. But we don’t say only Krishna...
 
"And it is such a simple thing. They don’t have to go to a church or temple. It doesn’t matter if they are in hell or heaven. In any condition they can chant the holy name of God...There is no charge, there is no fee, there is no loss. If there is some gain, why not try for it?...
 
"So what more do you want? Therefore let us cooperate. Don’t think that it is against Christianity or that it is sectarian. Let us cooperate fully. Jointly let us preach all over the world, ‘Chant the holy names of God.’ Let us join together. That should be the real purpose of devotees of God. My students are preaching love of God. Why should others be envious of them? We don’t say that you must chant Hare Krishna. If you have a name of God, chant it."
 
---Room conversation, London
August 14, 1971
 
6. Religion explains our predicament: a conscious living entity encaged in matter. 
 
Intelligent Design is often dismissed as a slick, pseudoscientific form of creationism.
 
The philosophical or theological Argument By Design at the heart of Intelligent Design does not directly prove the existence of God... it merely infers that it's a logical possibility.
 
A Christian, Gene Carman, commented on Salon.com, a liberal website:
 
"God is a matter of faith, as in contrast to fact. So, what is faith? Faith is 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...'"
 
A leap of faith is required because the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. We've come to this material world to forget God.
 
Madhavendra Puri dasa (Steve Bernath) of the Bhaktivedanta Institute said the Vaishnava Hindu objection to natural selection is that Darwin posited a mechanism to explain the origin and varieties of different species through blind natural processes, without any kind of intelligent direction or design.
 
**
 
A Hindu sannyassi (monk) said we can't talk about "spiritual life" unless we first admit we are spirit. We are not these physical bodies.
 
We are spirits in the material world.
 
In a 1979 essay, contemporary Hindu spiritual master Ravindra-svarupa dasa (Dr. William Deadwyler) distinguishes between the conscious self and the temporary physical body:
 
"The idea that life is the property of souls is derisively referred to by mechanistic thinkers as 'vitalism or 'animism.' It has been a singular failure of materialistic science to demonstrate how out of a world composed of nothing but matter something arises that *experiences* matter."
 
In his 1977 book, Readings in Vedic Literature: the Tradition Speaks for Itself, Satsvarupa dasa Goswami explains:
 
"The verbal root jiv means 'to live, be, or remain alive,' and the noun jiva refers to the individual living being, or soul. According to the Vedic (Hindu) analysis, the living being (jiva) is separate from the body, yet, within each and every body (including those of men, beasts, birds and plants) an individual soul (jiva) resides. Individual consciousness is the symptom of the jiva's presence. Although the body is perishable, the jiva is eternal."
 
Each of us has no way of knowing if the phenomenal world around us is real or illusory. The existence of the conscious self is the only thing each of us can know with any absolute certainty, through direct perception: self-awareness. (cogito ergo sum), or "I think (or I am cognizant), therefore I am."
 
This is the supreme realization of Western philosophy, as posited by Rene Descartes, and Descartes erred (or deliberately misled!) in ascribing consciousness only to human beings.
 
According to the ancient Sanskrit literatures, Brahma, the first created being, awakens and finds himself in darkness. The only thing he can know with any absolute certainty is his own existence. Taking a leap of faith, he prays to a higher power (the Supreme Lord) and all is revealed.
 
Madhavendra Puri dasa (Steve Bernath) of the Bhaktivedanta Institute said in 1986 that if it could be proven scientifically that the conscious self is separate and distinct from the physical body and arguably is forced by the law of karma to transmigrate from body to body, in 8,400,000 species of life, then it would mean we've slipped up (fallen from grace)...
 
...into a condition of life where we do not know God or other living entities by direct perception, but only ourselves. We've come to this material world not only to forget God, but to think that we can become God, that our individual consciousness is the center of the universe, and everyone and everything around us exists for our own gratification.
 
**
 
In a 1980 essay, "Immortal Longings," Ravindra-svarupa dasa writes:
 
"Selves are beings that experience, centers of consciousness, subjects. Matter does not experience; it is without subjectivity; it is completely an object. Selves live; matter is lifeless. When the selves enter the alien, material energy, they acquire and animate bodies made out of lifeless matter.
 
(The word "inanimate" literally means "without spirit" in Latin!)
 
"Now the self thinks of itself as a product of nature, as an object created and destroyed in time. As the body is damaged by disease and injury, as it disintegrates with age, and as it dies, the self thinks, 'This is happening to *me*.'
 
"Thus, the self enters the interminable horror of material existence, a nightmare of carnage from which it cannot awake. As one body is destroyed, nature transfers him to another, to undergo a similar destruction.
 
"The self moves blindly through these bodies, driven by an overwhelming appetite for enjoyment... through interminable bodily incarcerations, hurtling us over and over into forms that fill us with fear, suffer the onslaught of injury and disease, disintegrate while we still occupy them, and are destroyed.
 
"In reality, none of this happens to us, but we have erroneously identified ourselves with the body and have thereby taken these torments upon us. Death is an illusion we have imposed upon ourselves by our desire to enjoy this world."
 
In college in the spring of 1985, during the course of a casual armchair theological discussion, John Antypas (half-Jewish and half-Protestant) said Krishna devotees are merely repeating familiar Christian theology, the apostle Paul writing:
 
"...if you live in a fleshly way, you will die. But if through the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, then you will live... death, where is thy sting?"
 
Like Christians, Vaishnavas also believe that souls in this world have fallen from grace, that this world is transitory, and that there is an inner conflict between one’s carnal and spiritual natures.
 
**
 
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada drew an analogy between the biblical and Vaishnava teaching on the Fall from grace:
 
"When a living entity disobeys the orders of God, he is put into this material world, and that is his punishment... The real fact is that the living entity is eternal, and the material world is created to satisfy his false existence... The individual is thinking that he is independent and can act independent of God. That is the beginning of paradise lost, of Adam's fall.
 
"When Adam and Eve thought that they could do something independently, they were condemned. Every living entity is the eternal servant of God, and he must act according to the desire or will of the Supreme Lord. When he deviates from this principle, he is lost. Losing paradise, he comes into the material world...
 
"That is the process of transmigration, the rotation of the cycle of birth and death. This is all due to disobeying God... Having rebelled against the principles of God consciousness, we are cut off from our original position. We have fallen."
 
Following biblical tradition, St. Augustine made a distinction between the earthly and the heavenly, the temporary flesh and its bodily appetites versus the spirit and peace of the soul. Describing the predicament of the soul in a physical body in the material world, Augustine similarly wrote:
 
"And so long as he is in this mortal body, he is a pilgrim in a foreign land, away from God; therefore he walks by faith, not by sight."
 
Augustine said the soul "needs divine direction, which he may obey with resolution, and divine assistance that he may obey it freely..."
 
These doctrines are all consistent with Vaishnava theology.
 
The Vaishnava practice of offering one’s food in devotion to God has favorably been compared to the Eucharist. Episcopal priest Reverend Alvin Hart says, "It’s like the Mass, where the Host is considered nondifferent from the body of Christ..."
 
The peaceable kingdom doesn't exist here in the material world, which is a temporary and inferior reflection of a higher reality, and which is filled with miseries like repeated birth, death, old age, and disease.
 
The peaceable kingdom exists in the spiritual world, where life is eternal and full of bliss.
 
**
 
In 1985, during the course of a casual armchair theological discussion, John Antypas (half-Jewish and half-Protestant) said Krishna devotees are merely repeating familiar Christian theology. John merely saw belief in reincarnation, rather than vegetarianism, as a point of contention.
 
The biblical verses about "eternal life" in New Testament Christianity don't make any sense unless the only alternative is temporary or transitory life, or repeated birth and death... eternal damnation is also an "eternal life," too!
 
John asked, why couldn't the soul just be transferred permanently to either heaven or hell at the end of one lifetime, and then he caught himself and realized what he was describing is very similar to reincarnation.
 
(Right. For one brief lifetime, you're gonna get a whole eternity of reward or punishment?! In an essay on Christianity and reincarnation entitled Christian Metempsychosis, the 19th century American philosopher Francis Bowen of Harvard, admitted, "An eternity of either reward or punishment would seem to be inadequately earned by one brief period of probation on earth.")
 
John later explained his reasoning behind his saying the soul being transferred permanently to either heaven or hell at the end of one brief lifetime is very similar to reincarnation:
 
If you accept the premise that the conscious self is different from the physical body, that the conscious self is the observer within the body, then, at the time of death, the conscious self has merely shifted vantage points.
 
He later said, "I'm so glad to hear there's no eternal damnation..."
 
Anantarupa dasa, who took his present birth in Ireland and came to Krishna Consciousness from an Irish Catholic background, likes to tell Christians, "We're not that different from you."
 
7. Many of the objections to the existence of God in the video, like the "problem of evil" are *theological* not scientific!
 
The doctrine of reincarnation, widespread in early Christianity and openly espoused by early church fathers like Origen, first fell into disfavor beginning with Augustine, who wrote: "Let these Platonists stop threatening us with reincarnation as punishment for our souls. Reincarnation is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a return to this life for the punishment of souls..."
 
As a result of this thinking, Western theology has been unable to resolve the 'problem of evil.' Why does a merciful and omnipotent God allow suffering and injustice? Why, for example, are some people born handicapped, or into poverty, while others are born into wealth and privilege?
 
The reincarnationist explanation is karma: we reap what we sow. We are suffering and enjoying according to the deeds we committed in innumerable previous lifetimes, and our deeds in this present lifetime dictate our future -- in 8,400,000 different species of life. 
 
Rabbi Harold S. Kushner caused a theological controversy in the early 1980s, with his book, When Bad Things Happen to Good People. Kushner's solution to the 'problem of evil' is that God is not omnipotent! There are limits to His power. God is just as outraged as we are at the injustices in the world, but there's nothing He can do to stop them.
 
Asking millions of synagogue-and-church-and-mosque going Americans to take up an Eastern religion, worship a long-haired, flute-playing, blue God, and believe in karma and reincarnation may sound crazy and radical, but we now find mainstream Americans doing something even more radical: they are becoming worshipers of God-the-not-Almighty.
 
Brother Ron Pickarski, a vegan chef and Franciscan monk, said in an interview in historian Rynn Berry's 1998 book, Food for the Gods: Vegetarianism & the World's Religions, he believes Christianity will one day embrace reincarnation and vegetarianism. 
 
As for scientific proof of reincarnation: research by credible scientists into mind-body dualism suggests it is a real possibility. These include the research on near-death experiences by Dr. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist and professor at Emory University, and the past life memory research of Dr. Ian Stevenson, Carlson professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia.
 
8. Religion (or lack thereof) isn't an issue for me.
 
In 1990, I sided with the theists over the extreme skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc. When he was a freethinker, St. Augustine followed the extreme skeptics for a while, before becoming a Christian. The extreme skeptics claimed since you can't be certain of anything, go off into the desert, meditate, and not harm anyone (which is more than I can say for anti-semitic "Christians"!).
 
I related that my friend Ben Tansey, as an agnostic and extreme skeptic, said you can't be certain of anything. I DISAGREED with Ben, saying you directly experience your own existence. This is a spiritual realization. 
 
Each of us has no way of knowing if the phenomenal world around us is real or illusory. The existence of the conscious self is the only thing each of us can know with any absolute certainty, through direct perception: self-awareness. (cogito ergo sum), or "I think (or I am cognizant), therefore I am."
 
This is the supreme realization of Western philosophy, as posited by Rene Descartes, and Descartes erred (or deliberately misled!) in ascribing consciousness only to human beings.
 
A leap of faith is required because the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. We've come to this material world to forget God.
 
We've slipped up (fallen from grace)...
 
...into a condition of life where we do not know God or other living entities by direct perception, but only ourselves. We've come to this material world not only to forget God, but to think that we can become God, that our individual consciousness is the center of the universe, and everyone and everything around us exists for our own gratification.
 
The Christians didn't seem to appreciate my extending an olive branch to them. I wasn't bashing Christians, but appreciating their faith in God, and saying our religions have a lot in common. Instead, they started linking me to Ben!
 
Apparently the Christians can't tell Vasu Murti, a Hindu vegetarian pro-lifer apart from Ben Tansey, a meat-eating pro-choice agnostic! 
 
I had a secular upbringing. I've dated Jews, Christians, atheists, etc. 
 
I'm a secularist, not an atheist.
 
My only problem with atheists and agnostics is that many of them dismiss religion as for the feeble-minded, just a bunch of crap to keep people in line, etc. failing to see that it offers an explanation for our existence, our predicament in this world, purpose, meaning, etc. They're closing themselves off to higher possibilities.
 
I am reminded of the 1997 movie Contact, based on the novel by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.
 
Dr. Eleanor “Ellie” Arroway (Jodie Foster) is a gifted scientist, working for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico.
 
In conversation over dinner with her ex-boyfriend Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), a Christian theologian, she cites Occam’s Razor (“never multiply hypotheses”).
 
Arroway then asks Joss, which is the more logical and direct explanation: God does not exist, or God exists, but we have to first accept Him if He is to be known (or revealed) to us?
 
Arroway and her colleagues listen to radio transmissions in hopes of finding signals sent by extraterrestrial life. Arroway obtains funding from a “Ross Perot-type”: billionaire industrialist S.R. Hadden (John Hurt), who has been following Arroway’s career and allows her to continue her studies in Socorro County, New Mexico.
 
Four years later, Arroway finds a strong signal repeating a sequence of prime numbers, apparently emitting from the vicinity of the star Vega. They discover an Earth-based video transmission from 1936 buried in the signal.
 
Arroway and her team conclude this would have been the first significantly strong television signal to leave Earth’s atmosphere, eventually reaching Vega, and which was then transmitted back from Vega, twenty-six light years away.
 
The project is put under tight security and its progress followed fervently worldwide.
 
In the Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan novel, set in the not-too-distant-future, the president is a woman. In the movie, we see stock footage of President Bill Clinton speaking with sweeping generalizations to the press on “scientific discoveries…”
 
(The stock footage appearing in the movie was used without permission from the Clinton Administration, within a year of the Monica Lewinsky scandal! And it almost foreshadowed Clinton speaking before the American people about the Human Genome Project, a few years later.)
 
Arroway learns that a third set of data was found in the signal; over 60,000 “pages” of what appear to be technical drawings.
The pages are meant to be interpreted in three dimensions, which reveals a complex machine allowing for one human occupant inside a pod to be dropped into three rapidly spinning rings.
 
The nations of the world join together to fund the construction of the machine at Cape Canaveral on top of Launch Complex 39. An international panel is put together to select a candidate to travel in The Machine, make contact with the extraterrestrial civilization, on behalf of all of mankind.
 
While Arroway is one of the top selections, her lack of religious faith is noted by Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), a trusted friend and one of the panel members.
 
He asks her pointedly, during the course of the hearings if she believes in God. Evasive at first, she finally admits to atheism, which puts her at odds with 99 percent of the human race — not representative of mankind at all!
 
The first Machine built is destroyed by a suicide bomber, but Hadden has built a second Machine, and says Arroway will be the “pilot.”
 
Arroway begins her journey with several recording devices. When the pod travels through a series of wormholes, she is separated briefly and can observe the outside environment. This includes a radio array-like structure at Vega, and signs of a highly-advanced civilization on an unknown planet.
 
She finds herself approached by a blurry figure that resolves into that of her deceased father. Arroway recognizes him as an alien taking her father’s form, and attempts to ask questions about extraterrestrial life.
 
The alien deflects her questions, explaining that this journey is just humanity’s “first step” to joining other space-faring civilizations.
 
Arroway considers these answers and falls unconscious, finding herself on the floor of the pod where she is being repeatedly called by the machine’s control team. She learns that from all external vantage points, she and the pod merely dropped through the Machine.
 
She insists that she was gone for approximately 18 hours, but her recording devices only show static.
 
A congressional committee is to determine if Arroway is an unwitting accomplice in an elaborate hoax orchestrated by Hadden.
 
A member of the congressional committee responds in disbelief, and cites Occam’s Razor (“never multiply hypotheses”) when Arroway asks the rest of the world to accept her testimony of her personal contact with a higher civilization **on faith**!
 
Afterward, Arroway returns to her position, while government officials ponder:
 
…the recording devices which accompanied Arroway when she merely appeared to drop through the Machine contain static, but they contain **18 hours** of static!

Go on to: At the Heart of Christianity
Return to: Articles

© 1998-2017 Vasu Murti