In this chapter, we would attempt to create the ground for unity among all major spiritual philosophies based on truly firm principles. For sake of readability, we will keep the language simple and avoid cryptic references. It is perhaps the first time that such a holistic view of various philosophies is being presented in this manner. If there are errors, I humbly accept it, as the motto has always been – we do not attempt to provide the final truth in a capsule. We merely try to show the path for each of us to explore.
Why contradictions in different philosophies?
There are several obvious and not-so-obvious reasons:
First confusion
All philosophies start with an attempt to model the perceptions of the world in a manner that we can understand them easily and generate lessons for future.
To model the perceptions and be able to communicate them we need to have the following:
• Certain definitions to define the entities.
• Certain frameworks that establish relationships among these entities.
• Certain generalized principles based on these frameworks.
Often the same words are used to define different things in different philosophies. The use of same words to define different things is the first prime source of contradictions.
Students of philosophy are found fighting mostly over what is God and what is the soul. The reality is that God and soul are definitions. Depending upon how we define these entities, the relationship between soul and God would differ.
Please note that truth is beyond definitions.
Definitions are merely means to comprehend the truth better through our bounded intellect by using frameworks and developing fundamental principles.
An added advantage is that definitions help us exchange each others’ experiences so as to enhance our understanding better.
When someone says turmeric is good for teeth, we all understand what turmeric is and what is teeth, and hence, we can derive benefits from these definitions. Had there been no such definitions or each of us would have defined ‘teeth’ differently, we might have been suffering from a severe toothache even though remedy was simple!
Coming back to definitions in philosophy, while there is rough standardization in definitions of entities like God, soul, salvation, there are enough differences to cause disputes.
It is like a field of Finance where Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) is a popular ratio used to evaluate the efficiency of a company. However, there is no unanimity over what Capital would exactly mean. For some companies, Capital includes short-term loans as well. For others, even long-term loans are not included. Different experts come with different numbers of the same ratio. Often there are debates and even PhDs on what should be right definition of “Capital” for a particular industry. However, the point is that “Capital” still remains a definition. If we apply the same definition of Capital on manufacturing firms as well as a bank, we would have totally meaningless comparative analysis.
This meaningless debate does acquire centerstage in the field of philosophy. Perhaps because most students of philosophy are not very comfortable with scientific approach! They waste time arguing about definitions rather than analyzing the concepts. Modern science is smarter in this regard. The first step in modern science is to clearly define the terms in as much specific detail as possible. This eliminates all debates due to subtle differences in what you and I may interpret a word to be.
For example, energy in science is not any divine power, neither a feeling of enthusiasm. It is product of Force and Displacement. Force is, again, not the impact of your punch. Force is mass multiplied by acceleration.
In philosophy, concepts are not clearly defined and vagueness leads to unfruitful debates that could have settled merely by agreeing to define them precisely. We keep using the same terms, stretching their meanings a bit here and there and eventually end up comparing the same term with even opposite meanings!
Consider for example the following:
Islam = Peace
Rest = Peace
Death = Rest
Poison = Death
Hence , Islam = Poison
(deeds of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Zakir Naik only make such concept-shifts appear more plausible!)
Second confusion
A second confusion comes when some definitions of Philosophy “A” are used in the framework of Philosophy “B” and compared with principles of Philosophy “C.” Any student of algebra would tell us that we cannot use definitions of X and Y from one problem, definition of Z from another problem and still be able to solve the third problem. Each problem must have its own definitions and equations.
For example, terms like God, soul, etc. has different definitions in different philosophies.
We have to ensure that we use the correct definitions for each philosophy to understand it correctly and do not mix them.
Third confusion
The third confusion comes out of package deal problem. Each philosophy has certain core tenets. Then there are extensions of the core tenets. Further, after the founder has died, his/ her followers keep adding more concepts to the philosophy. Even rituals, practices, and assumptions are added upon. Then the entire package is sold in the market. Either we have to buy the entire package or nothing.
It is impossible for any truly rational person to be in full agreement with the complete package without an element of doubt. Such people are not welcome to be a follower.
Instead, the group of ardent followers largely includes people who keep ego above reason, emotions above rationale.
Instead of being truth-seekers, they become defenders of the total package.
Instead of being students of the subject, they become security guards of the package manufacturers.
A whole game of conquest and expansion and inter-rivalry among different package manufacturers begins and the core purpose as well as core tenets of philosophies are sidelined in more showy aspects of the marketing departments manufacturing companies.
Fourth confusion
The fourth confusion comes due to commercialization. Many philosophers become philosophers primarily because they know philosophy sells. They would model their verbose but seductive talks to suit their client needs and harp on the emotional pull. They bring further confusion in the business of philosophy and ensure that the common man is eternally confused. Some students find the dialogues of such philosophers quite enchanting and repeat them to create their own impressions without knowing what they mean.
We have a fully developed philosophy market today comprising most hollow philosophies to truly deep ones but converted into publishing houses offering package deals. Too much of variety does not help the consumer in this case. It only adds to his woes by keeping him eternally confused.
Fifth confusion
The fifth and truly genuine cause of confusion comes from the very fact that many of these philosophies emerged in different periods of history to address different needs of their periods.
These philosophies were also impacted by the competencies, inclinations, education and background of their founders.
They have to be understood in their own contexts. Any extension that is out of context would be dangerous and detrimental to interests of society and individual.
If we attempt to clean the major philosophies of these factors of confusion, we will find that most point to the same direction. Let us see how:
Vedic Philosophy
Vedas offer a variety of models to understand the world around and our place in it. When it comes to issues of God, soul, etc, it offers a very intuitive model that was equally succinctly presented by Swami Dayanand Saraswati – the social reformer considered reviver of Vedic philosophy in modern era
• It defines ‘I’ who is a source of consciousness witnessing everything around as ‘Soul’ (S). There can be no denying its existence because if it is denied, then who is denying it?
• It sees the world around which is different from the ‘I’ and defines it as ‘Nature’ (N).
• It observes that the world around is being managed very smartly as per unchangeable laws. It defines the source of this smartness as Ishwar or ‘God’ (G).
It proceeds further to define the various properties of Soul, Nature, and God. For example,
• A variety of life forms and the fact that soul is beyond physical entities implies that soul is undestroyable via physical things. Weapons can’t rupture it, fire cannot burn it, water cannot dissolve it, air cannot wither it. Hence, the soul is immortal.
• The soul has limited knowledge at a given point in time.
• The soul seeks happiness and eradication of miseries.
• Soul has free-will.
• Nature is inert and simply a puppet in the hands of unchangeable laws. Even the mind and source of sense-organs are inert.
• God is smart because it is working smartly.
• Since the universe is infinite in scope and complexities, God is also infinitely intelligent.
• Since God works for our benefits, He is kind.
• Since He ensures we do not skip our pursuit of happiness through right actions, He also punishes us through the law of Karma and hence, He is just.
Self-introspection can also help us detail this knowledge even further. Notice how intuitive is all this. But as we get into more and more subtle detail, we are forced to have a subtler and subtler mind that can observe these subtle details. This is what Yog Sadhana is all about. This would be a separate topic in itself. For now, let us summarize the Vedic Philosophy:
Vedic Philosophy defines three eternal entities – God, Soul, and Nature – that always existed and will always exist. This model is very honest because we all see this directly in our lives.
Vedic philosophy further states that:
• Creation and dissolution happen in continuous cycles.
• There comes a state when each soul is no more freely-willed. Either soul becomes unconscious during dissolution phase or acts as per will of God after achieving salvation.
• Nature also comes to its root form and under full control of God.
• The three act as one single entity with one single command governing them.
If we talk about the present, soul S has a separate Free-Will and nature N is governed by God G as well as Soul S. But in the state of dissolution, both S and N act as per will of God G.
Then again creation happens and then once creation is complete, N and S separate out. This goes on and one like day and night.
Note that all these are definitions and very intuitive from introspection and common observation.
Someone may ask – Does that mean God does not exist and, in reality, we are only ‘defining’ or ‘creating’ it for our own convenience?
The answer is that this question itself has little relevance. Actually, the same question can be raised for each and every entity in the world. The chair on which we sit is also defined for our convenience. In reality, it is only empty inter-atomic space that our eyes cannot see due to limited vision, but we use it to sit down.
The reality is simply that we have an aid to sit down and relax. One cannot deny that. Whether you call it a chair, or you call each limb of the chair by a different name, or you call each atom differently, or you name each point in inter-atomic space by a different x,y,z coordinate matters least. That is only a definition. That does not change reality.
Similarly, God, Soul, Nature are words to define certain concepts. The very fact that we define them from our own observations implies that they are real. But whether you call something like God or three traits of this God as ODG and the rest as GOD or whatever is only a naming convention.
I can define you as one single person or a group of 2 eyes, two nostrils, one mouth, two ears, etc. or in any other way I choose. But YOU as a concept exist!
In the same vein, no one can deny that God G, Soul S and Nature N of Vedas exist.
Advaita (Vedanta) philosophy and Vedas
Advaita tackles the same problem differently and uses some different definitions.
It defines, G+S+N = Brahma (B).
Since there is a sufficiently long period when S and N act as per will of G alone, it says that ultimately everything is Brahma.
It says that whatever exists in the world is Brahma. I am Brahma, you are Brahma, the table is Brahma, God is Brahma. Note that this is NOT a prediction or claim. It is a DEFINITION.
It further states that Soul S does not realize that it is eventually going to lose its free-will and act as per will of Brahma during the phase of dissolution or salvation.
This loss of free-will does not mean soul becomes captive. It is just that it does not act against the will of God as it does today because it is smarter then. Suppose I give you a beautiful glass toy. So far you are dumb; you may desire to break it for the sake of adventure. But if you are smart and fully understand the futility of breaking it, you would keep it safe. This does not mean that as a smart person you are imprisoned to prevent you from breaking of the toy. It is just that as a smart person, you don’t have the urge to break the toy. You have synced your urge with urge of the sensible mind. You simply do what is best and do not act stupid just to prove you are free.
Advaita states that we should all attempt to come closer to our most desirable state of being ‘uni’-willed with Brahma. The impediment is Maya or ignorance. And the way to get rid of it is to realize that this world is temporary, and Brahma is the reality.
In Vedic philosophy, Maya is called Avidya. And it also appeals to strive to have renunciation from temporary and conduct of actions for achievement of permanent.
We see that if we replace Maya with Avidya, and Brahma with G+S+N, Advaita and Vedic Philosophy are one and same.
The great Shankaracharya, who first gave this Advaita philosophy in this form, himself stated that ultimately Brahma again divides into G+S+N and then Soul S again becomes one with Brahma. There is absolutely no difference in two philosophies.
But as we said, the problem comes when we take philosophies as package deals. What happened was that later followers started mistaking Brahma for G, and gave a ridiculous philosophy that we are already God. Only Maya prevents us from believing so. The very philosophy which was supposed to excite us to put worthy efforts to get rid of ignorance made us a passive society. So passive, that the era of slavery can be significantly correlated with this Neo-Vedantic modification of original Advaita theory. Where when time demands us to fight the villains, we find an excuse to escape deluding in our self-proclaimed Brahma status. Ignoring the fact that Maya has to be ripped apart through vigorous actions towards call of duty.
This error perhaps happened because Vedas clearly state that God G is omnipresent. And hence, Brahma being G+S+N (a superset) also has to be omnipresent. Therefore, omnipresence and omnipotence of God started being attributed to each Soul S and each point of Nature N as well.
Those who could not control their bladders started fooling themselves to believe that they can control the whole universe! Moreover, if that was not enough, they started looking at everything and everyone as God.
• Why fight an enemy who is killing our men and raping our women?
• Why counter the looters?
• After all, the looter and the looted, the rapist and the raped, the killed and the killer are all one same God!
They forgot that Maya does not get eradicated by being an ostrich. The only way to eradicate Maya is by being proactive in worldly actions for a higher cause and being extra-energetic about countering the nuisances of health, society and world. If that had not been the case, even Acharya Shankar would have lived hiding in a cave chanting ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ rather than taking such arduous journeys across the whole country to establish a Vedic religion and in process die a premature death!
During Acharya Shankars’s time, a very defeatist interpretation of Jainism/ Buddhism was getting popular. This was based on the assumption that ultimately everything would end in a big zero. The way out is to deny the Supreme and deny intuitive proactive responses to real-life through passive denial. The country of warriors was turning into the land of escapists. He counter-argued that whatever could be proved by considering that everything would end in ZERO can also be explained by considering that ultimately everything would tend towards infinite potential – Brahma.
Such was the impact of his charisma and arguments that Vedic Dharma got established forever and impacted all philosophies of the land. Every philosophy had to upgrade itself due to brilliance of Acharya.
We see that Vedic Philosophy as propounded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Advaita as propounded by Acharya Shankar, both point towards the same concepts from different approaches.
Neo-Advaita that is marketed today is a later day aberration due to package-deal.
Buddhism and Vedas
Buddhism emerged at a time when mindless rituals were considered ways to reach God or salvation. Vedic verses were stretched out of context to suit ritualistic meanings. This led to the great decadence of society, and subtler philosophical aspects of Dharma were getting wiped out.
Under such situations, Buddha gave a very practical concept – that the only reality I know 100% is ‘I.’ This ‘I’ is impacted by many factors and hence keeps varying from time to time. To understand more subtle concepts, first this ‘I’ should be understood and controlled properly. He laid stress on
• moral virtues
• meditation and
• self-control
Because all nuisances were happening in the name of Vedas, he denied Vedas. Though, in spirit he was following exactly the Vedas by teaching that blind mugging up of some scriptures and implementing them literally will only make us dumber. His focus was to end blind belief, and hence his philosophy focused on that. The name Buddha itself means intellect.
It’s an irony that the same Buddhism later transformed into the most superstitious cult we know today through the package deal phenomena.
If we look at core philosophy, what Vedas call as God G is defined as ‘Laws of Nature’ by Buddhists. Even atheism does the same.
Also, Buddhists believe that Soul is NOT eternal and keeps changing every moment. This is also as per Vedas if we understand that
Soul (Buddhist definition) = Soul (Vedas) + Mind.
Vedas state that Mind is attached with Soul and Mind keeps changing as per its experiences and actions. Both philosophies say the same thing but define the terms a bit differently. Also
Nirvana (Buddhism) = Mukti (Vedas)
The Zero philosophy of Buddhism is also in lines with Vedas. Because in Mukti, the uncontrolled fluctuations of mind tend to Zero. Since Buddhist Soul also includes Mind, it states that ultimately fluctuations or rather the manifest function of mind will become Zero.
In other words, the way we see the world cannot exist for us when fluctuations of mind are zero. But since the very context in which Buddhism emerged did not allow further exploration of the concept of Soul by its followers, this Zeroism of Buddhism could not be expressed in more clearer framework. This resulted in Buddhism becoming an escapist cult in many places. But if you consider the core essence of stillness of mind from fluctuations, that is exactly in lines of Vedas.
Interestingly, the ten characteristics of Dharma as defined in Manu Smriti appear almost in the same form in Buddhist texts as well as Jainism that we shall discuss next.
The action-oriented Buddhism of Shaolin temple is a near-replica of Vedic philosophy in its approach, lifestyle, food, practices etc.
We will discuss Buddhism and Vedas in further details, in another chapter.
Jainism and Vedas
The core ideology of Jainism also emphasized on basic tenets of Vedic conduct to de-emphasize focus on blinded rituals in the name of Vedas. Like Buddhism, they also define God G of Vedas as ‘Laws of Nature’.
They say that universe in unchanging which is a variation of Vedic principle that universe does not get destroyed permanently and the material forming universe is ever-existent.
Jainism defines God as those elated souls that have removed all seeds of ignorance.
God (Jainism) = Soul of Vedas that has achieved Salvation.
Sikhism and Vedas
Sikhism is nothing but Vedic philosophy in action without emphasis on verbatim belief on any particular text. We will discuss Sikhism and Vedas in another chapter.
Atheism and Vedas
Atheism basically denies the concept of ‘God’ as given by Semitic religion of Church. However, it has no basis to refute the God of Vedas. Perhaps the only two objections are:
• The word God evokes different emotions due to its more prominent association with an anthropomorphic (human-like) Emperor of the world. This can be eliminated by using a different phrase instead of God. Let’s call that ‘Source behind all Laws of Nature.’
• A second objection is an anathema against the optimistic perception that Laws of Nature are there to help us. But this is only a psychological problem that certain people tend to avoid optimism and yet seek happiness in their own lives indirectly! This pessimism in a very hardcore small group of atheist also emanates from repulsion against the hype of a merciful, forgiving God that is emphasized by Bible.
But if you suggest that Vedic God does not change His laws a bit, then even this objection is taken care of.
If atheism is associated with modern scientists, then scientists like Einstein only objected to the Biblical God. They could not explore the Vedic God due to lack of access to such a philosophy. But whatever views Einstein suggested for God was very much in lines of Vedas – an impartial God, who does not change his laws and meddle with our personal lives.
Christianity / Islam and Vedas
Christianity and Islam emerged in those geographies and those eras where superstitions and ignorance abounded the society. To expect such societies to understand or teach subtle concepts of Eastern Philosophies that emerge only after a very fine control of the mind is a bit too much. Christianity and Islam offered more simplistic philosophies for their target audience.
It was impossible for such a society to conceive of any entity that cannot be seen directly with eyes.
• The notion of God being above 7 or 4 skies came up.
• To prevent people from conducting sins, fear of punishment by such a God was inculcated.
• To offer carrots, the concept of forgiving and mercy were created.
• To explain and give examples of these properties of God, a lot of stories were created that included God, angels, Satan, miracles, heaven, hell, and prophets. Even today, we often tend to use such models to control small children though their long-term effects on personality are a matter of great controversy.
As modern science progressed, Christian society gradually gave up its insistence on Biblical superiority. And thus, it progressed like anything. Islam could not progress due to political reasons. Hindu society today is a hybrid of liberal concepts, Islamic influence, and pre-Islamic distortions. It stands in the middle like Dhritrashtra.
But if you look at the core of Christian and Islamic philosophies (and not later day packages), their aim was to define an entity that ensures that all our actions are accounted for, and we get rewards for good deeds as well as punishment for bad deeds. A completely binary version of any Eastern Philosophy would simplify into these philosophies.
Conventional/ Modern Hinduism and Vedas
Conventional Hinduism comprises a vast mix of a variety of worship methods, rituals, social customs and practices. The core philosophy behind this is that all souls are worth being respected which is sourced from Vedas. Hinduism attempts to incorporate in a ‘non-confronting’ manner every possible ideology that tends to influence it. It’s like the river Ganga that emerges as a pure stream of healing water in Gomukh glacier but becomes a carrier of enormous gallons of water by the time it reaches Gangasagar in the Bay of Bengal.
Hinduism today embraces Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Miracle Stories as well as Vedas that form the origin.
The Vedic philosophy of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ ( The Entire world is my own family but extended to ‘entire world’s philosophy is my own philosophy’) that forms basis of this all-encompassing panorama of Hinduism is indeed a noble concept.
The very name ‘Hinduism’ testifies this.
As per needs of the time, Hinduism gave very relevant models to help societies of that particular era meet the real challenges. Neo-Vedanta and atheistic Buddhism was countered by a variety of philosophies that considered God as an entity with a form with whom human-like emotions could be evoked. Idol worship began. When that started giving rise to too much of casteism and superstitions, and the society was getting directionless in an era of attacks by invaders and lustful lives of rulers in the name of emulating Sri Krishna’s fictitious gopi tales, an ideal model of Sri Ram was promoted. Similarly, the valor of Durga was emphasized. All this led to moral strengthening and preservation of valor preventing us from getting wiped away like Iran and Afghanistan.
The philosophy was simple – keep evolving to address immediate requirements without getting into confrontations.
But in its over-zealousness for embracing the entire world without risk of any potential confrontations, it could not leave out the black-sheep of the family – the villains. The short-sightedness led to much more challenging problems in long term. Also, the humility to slow up own speed to keep pace with the laggards to avoid confrontations with them made modern Hinduism lazy and coward. Hinduism included vices like caste system, gender discrimination, superstitions, fatalism, servility, ambiguity, grave worship over the course which were not present in its source nor can be justified in any logical manner. Bulks of them were collected in very recent times in order to solve short-term challenges without confrontations or addressing the roots.
Hinduism would fight against any attempt to be cleansed of these to maintain its non-confrontational image. It would rather fight the internal voices that emerge against the AIDS disease that weaken us from within than see this AIDS as the cause of being bugged regularly by pettiest of external force. And instead of confronting the cause it would confront the internal voices that demand cleansing.
Hinduism comprises even completely conflicting views of almost everything and yet revers all these conflicts to prevent any confrontation today.
There is that great story of King Harishchandra, who would rather sell his own wife and children than confront the unreasonable demands of an outsider. King Rantideva preferred to have his wife and son die of hunger to feed the guest. Such modern Hindu folk tales where an external entity TESTS the hero and gives him a pass certificate when he tortures himself and his closed ones to meet the most ridiculous demands of the external entity form basis of our psyche.
Yes, if you consider ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’, ‘Atithi Devo Bhava’ (Guest is great) and non-confrontation with outsiders as the ONLY philosophies of the Vedas, then modern Hinduism follows this better than any other philosophy. However if we keep aside this zeal to internalize as many external packages as possible so as to avoid confrontations and become a ‘mother package’ we see that modern Hinduism is an attempt to seek peace and universal brotherhood in lines of all other major philosophies..
Summary
I just gave examples from some of the major philosophies of the world to demonstrate how they all point to the same direction. It is high time that
• We all shed the superfluous differences and embrace each other as part of one single family.
• We should learn from our mistakes and limitations and understand the truth better. That is exactly why humans have natural urge to live in society.
• Instead of harping on differences, all well-intentioned forces should integrate together in the pursuit of truth.
• We should proactively debate each other, analyze each other, even refute each other – but not with the purpose of ego-satisfaction or winning a war, but to genuinely understand truth better in a compassionate matter.
• We should be wary of only those forces that do not possess this genuine intention.
This mutual collaborative truth-seeking is the source behind all philosophies of the world. This Vedic religion is the fountainhead of all philosophies. Let this be the starting point. Let this be our mantra:
‘I promise to accept truth through a continuous process of rejecting falsehood every moment to best of my abilities in the most sincere manner.’
[mybooktable book=”vedas-source-every-philosophy-makes-sense” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
[mybooktable book=”complete-works-agniveer” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
