If everything is God, should we then worship a thief too
There was an interesting question which was raised with reference to the “Everything is God” and “I am God” etc which is used symbolically in many places while talking Advaita.
If everyone is God, then is a thief also a God. Will you then stop him from stealing, or start worshipping him with flowers? This was the point raised by Sw. Ashokananda. He then beautifully brings the idea of “Spiritualizing everyday life”, i.e., even if we are not in a position to change our surroundings, we can by changing our attitude towards them, derive spiritual benefit from the same surroundings.
Firstly if one regards his nature as divine, then it naturally follows that he has to also regard others as divine. Everybody is divine, and if we have this feeling in our present state where we still have a sense of outward relationship, our attitude towards other being will be one of worship.
Of course, when you become plunged in the consciousness of atonement with God then you do not know that there is either an inside or an outside. In that very high, inarticulate state in which there is no thought, no movement, nothing, there is no sense of plurality, and the practice of regarding others as divine would not apply. But as long as you are aware of even one other person existing besides yourself -and in our ordinary state we are aware of an infinite number of beings existing outside of us -then, with the philosophical conviction in the background that everyone is indeed divine, the only true attitude you can maintain towards other is that of worshipfulness.
It is at this point the question about the ‘thief’ God arises. How are we supposed to act when we see a thief. Or for ease, when the child is being naughty?
Well, when there is a change in the concept of God, there can also be change in the concept of worship.
What is worship after all… is it just standing and sitting a particular number of time in a day; or is it just putting some flowers on the deity. Surely these are worship. But these are just few forms of worship. The real essence of worship in my view is when you offer something to the God with total love and devotion, without any idea of selfishness, then it is worship. It not very important what we offer, more important is with what attitude we offer, with what love.
So when a child is naughty, I can probably trash him. But it is not done with any feeling of anger, but only with the form of pure love, of what is good for the child. In the same manner, if I see the thief, I will not obviously let him steal. I may probably continue to act the way, I would otherwise have. The only difference is that I no longer do so out of any anger or fear. I do so, coz that is best for him. Selfish considerations will be no longer dictating what I should and should not do. I will do so in an attitude of service, not authority.
This simply attitudinal change is capable of making huge transformation. The world may be as it is. But our attitude towards the world will not be the same. We live in the world, yet be separate from it. We may go on doing our regular Dharma’s, as we are expected by the society to do. But the motive is no longer selfish. Acts thus purified by the fire of unselfishness are no longer bounding and thus spiritual in nature.
The reply of Omkar to this thread (in colour)
good thread you have started. there are some flaws in your argument though.
in an advaitic framework, paropakara is as bad as swartha, because once you view it as a upakara, it gives duality to the whole thing, and one operates under the auspices of mAyA.
there are three kinds of actions.
selfish action (swArthAya karma)
selfless action (paropakArAya karma)
and action in accordance to the need of the moment. (dharma karma)
selfish action accrues pApa, selfless action accrues puNya and dharma karma accrues neither pApa nor puNya.
therefore, an action should not be performed because it is either good or bad for the doer or the subject on whom the action is done.
the action should be performed because at that moment, performing the action is the dharma of the doer.
when action is thus performed under a mental framework that does not think of good or bad, of right or wrong, of profit or loss, or any other ideas introducing duality, that action is what would be termed as advaitic action.
krishna talks about such action in the bhagavat gita. do it because it needs to be done, and you are the one who has to do it.
then the question arises, how do i know then, what action to perform when, if i should not evaluate the presiding conditions or the consequences? (even though i should accept the conditions and expect the consequences)
For this, the mind has to be prepared, there has to be oneness of mind, the samskAras have to be learnt by the reading of the scriptures.
However, Krishna says in the Gita and in reality, he is doing nothing. Because he is both the subject and the doer, therefore, he is doing nothing.
We have to get rid of samskAras that will lead us away from the path of the Gita, and learn samskAras that will align us with the Gita. Therefore, automatically we will stop the thief, and admonish the naughty child without traumatising it.
However, this is just the advaitic position. The dvaitic hindu position is just as your described.
My reply to Omkar:
I agree that in the Paramarthika state action itself does not make any sense. Thats why I added the following lines in my post: Of course, when you become plunged in the consciousness of atonement with God then you do not know that there is either an inside or an outside. In that very high, inarticulate state in which there is no thought, no movement, nothing, there is no sense of plurality, and the practice of regarding others as divine would not apply. But as long as you are aware of even one other person existing besides yourself -and in our ordinary state we are aware of an infinite number of beings existing outside of us
If you carefully observe, the very word "Advaitic action" is a contradiction of words. The word action presupposes duality.
Thats I did not say you will be aware of that truth and see the God in others. You have only intellectual conviction that everything is indeed divine, but you are not aware of that state. So this attitude of seeing God in others is not coz I am 'aware' (living knowledge) that he is divine. No I cannot be aware. But I only know that intellectually that he is divine.
Why should I try to convince mind of something in the ordinary state when it is not aware of oneness? Because to see something other than God is what makes us limited. In meditation you try to be aware of the inner divinity. But speaking in the ordinary level, what about the rest of the hours in a day? So we try to maintian this attitude of seeing divinity outside. The working is same as that of dhyana. In dhyana the fact that divinity is within you is only teoritical to you and not living, but with practice it becomes living too. In the same manner, in the beggining the point that the other is divine is only theoritical to you, but with practice it becomes living. So what matters is not whether I am aware that he is divine or not, but trying to see nothing else but God everywhere, everytime. If you see nothing but divinity, then there is no more duality.
BTW, one must always try to be aware of the self. The famous dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad goes as:
And he said: "Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but she is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the animals, my dear, are the animals loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
.
.
.
If everyone is God, then is a thief also a God. Will you then stop him from stealing, or start worshipping him with flowers? This was the point raised by Sw. Ashokananda. He then beautifully brings the idea of “Spiritualizing everyday life”, i.e., even if we are not in a position to change our surroundings, we can by changing our attitude towards them, derive spiritual benefit from the same surroundings.
Firstly if one regards his nature as divine, then it naturally follows that he has to also regard others as divine. Everybody is divine, and if we have this feeling in our present state where we still have a sense of outward relationship, our attitude towards other being will be one of worship.
Of course, when you become plunged in the consciousness of atonement with God then you do not know that there is either an inside or an outside. In that very high, inarticulate state in which there is no thought, no movement, nothing, there is no sense of plurality, and the practice of regarding others as divine would not apply. But as long as you are aware of even one other person existing besides yourself -and in our ordinary state we are aware of an infinite number of beings existing outside of us -then, with the philosophical conviction in the background that everyone is indeed divine, the only true attitude you can maintain towards other is that of worshipfulness.
It is at this point the question about the ‘thief’ God arises. How are we supposed to act when we see a thief. Or for ease, when the child is being naughty?
Well, when there is a change in the concept of God, there can also be change in the concept of worship.
What is worship after all… is it just standing and sitting a particular number of time in a day; or is it just putting some flowers on the deity. Surely these are worship. But these are just few forms of worship. The real essence of worship in my view is when you offer something to the God with total love and devotion, without any idea of selfishness, then it is worship. It not very important what we offer, more important is with what attitude we offer, with what love.
So when a child is naughty, I can probably trash him. But it is not done with any feeling of anger, but only with the form of pure love, of what is good for the child. In the same manner, if I see the thief, I will not obviously let him steal. I may probably continue to act the way, I would otherwise have. The only difference is that I no longer do so out of any anger or fear. I do so, coz that is best for him. Selfish considerations will be no longer dictating what I should and should not do. I will do so in an attitude of service, not authority.
This simply attitudinal change is capable of making huge transformation. The world may be as it is. But our attitude towards the world will not be the same. We live in the world, yet be separate from it. We may go on doing our regular Dharma’s, as we are expected by the society to do. But the motive is no longer selfish. Acts thus purified by the fire of unselfishness are no longer bounding and thus spiritual in nature.
The reply of Omkar to this thread (in colour)
good thread you have started. there are some flaws in your argument though.
in an advaitic framework, paropakara is as bad as swartha, because once you view it as a upakara, it gives duality to the whole thing, and one operates under the auspices of mAyA.
there are three kinds of actions.
selfish action (swArthAya karma)
selfless action (paropakArAya karma)
and action in accordance to the need of the moment. (dharma karma)
selfish action accrues pApa, selfless action accrues puNya and dharma karma accrues neither pApa nor puNya.
therefore, an action should not be performed because it is either good or bad for the doer or the subject on whom the action is done.
the action should be performed because at that moment, performing the action is the dharma of the doer.
when action is thus performed under a mental framework that does not think of good or bad, of right or wrong, of profit or loss, or any other ideas introducing duality, that action is what would be termed as advaitic action.
krishna talks about such action in the bhagavat gita. do it because it needs to be done, and you are the one who has to do it.
then the question arises, how do i know then, what action to perform when, if i should not evaluate the presiding conditions or the consequences? (even though i should accept the conditions and expect the consequences)
For this, the mind has to be prepared, there has to be oneness of mind, the samskAras have to be learnt by the reading of the scriptures.
However, Krishna says in the Gita and in reality, he is doing nothing. Because he is both the subject and the doer, therefore, he is doing nothing.
We have to get rid of samskAras that will lead us away from the path of the Gita, and learn samskAras that will align us with the Gita. Therefore, automatically we will stop the thief, and admonish the naughty child without traumatising it.
However, this is just the advaitic position. The dvaitic hindu position is just as your described.
My reply to Omkar:
I agree that in the Paramarthika state action itself does not make any sense. Thats why I added the following lines in my post: Of course, when you become plunged in the consciousness of atonement with God then you do not know that there is either an inside or an outside. In that very high, inarticulate state in which there is no thought, no movement, nothing, there is no sense of plurality, and the practice of regarding others as divine would not apply. But as long as you are aware of even one other person existing besides yourself -and in our ordinary state we are aware of an infinite number of beings existing outside of us
If you carefully observe, the very word "Advaitic action" is a contradiction of words. The word action presupposes duality.
Thats I did not say you will be aware of that truth and see the God in others. You have only intellectual conviction that everything is indeed divine, but you are not aware of that state. So this attitude of seeing God in others is not coz I am 'aware' (living knowledge) that he is divine. No I cannot be aware. But I only know that intellectually that he is divine.
Why should I try to convince mind of something in the ordinary state when it is not aware of oneness? Because to see something other than God is what makes us limited. In meditation you try to be aware of the inner divinity. But speaking in the ordinary level, what about the rest of the hours in a day? So we try to maintian this attitude of seeing divinity outside. The working is same as that of dhyana. In dhyana the fact that divinity is within you is only teoritical to you and not living, but with practice it becomes living too. In the same manner, in the beggining the point that the other is divine is only theoritical to you, but with practice it becomes living. So what matters is not whether I am aware that he is divine or not, but trying to see nothing else but God everywhere, everytime. If you see nothing but divinity, then there is no more duality.
BTW, one must always try to be aware of the self. The famous dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad goes as:
And he said: "Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but she is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the animals, my dear, are the animals loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
.
.
.
posted by S at 9:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home