- What is God, the real one (if there is one) and the human belief?
à The human belief of god is that of a personified entity that prevails over the entire creation and is assumed to be in charge of everything there is, a supreme entity surrendering to whose sanctuary is expected to keep harm at bay. This belief represents a beacon that guides the mind through darkness and helps it stay focused.
On the contrary the definition of the real god is highly subjective and depends on the interpretation of the individual attempting to define God. So this is my interpretation – God to me is the essence of the universe. God does not exist in a singularity or as personified entity thus I shall refrain from referring to God as He/She/It. For drawing a reference to God is like my finger pointing at me and saying “what the finger points to is me”. The flaw in such a reference is that if the finger points at me then it ceases to be a part of what is being referenced and thus the entity (me) looses its totality as it is minus one finger.
It is impossible to distinguish God from the Cosmos, so God as per me is the instance at or act through which every component of this cosmos came together and gave it meaning. God is what gives meaning to the cosmos, what makes the cosmos the cosmos. In other words, the cosmos through its very existence is God.
In a way what I have defined as the real God is my belief. So the point is that everything is a belief – the real God is that version of the belief that one believes in. To me my belief is the real God and everything else just another belief.
- How is the real god different from the human belief and why does a belief in an entity other the real exist when the difference is known?
à We humans believe in what we want to believe in, there are always choices that we make. Given the situation that there exist multiple versions of God, we choose to believe in what is most convincing to us. Different individuals, owing to their different mental makeup, perceive things differently and thus find it easier to accept some things as compared to others. There is no absolute ‘Real God’ that everyone will concur with. The real God is what one believes to be real. Similarly atheist and the theist are different in the way they perceive things thus have different beliefs, each one of them believes that their belief is truer than the other's.
- What is the reason for the prevalence of the belief in god - is it because the belief of the existence of an all pervasive, all powerful entity is comforting to the human mind?
à If we are to look at the whole of humanity then it is easy to note that religion and God, although exist in extremely varied forms, are something that exist across civilizations and centrally are very much similar in the way what are trying to achieve.
At this point, I think, it is important to demarcate the concepts of Religions and God.
The definition of God has already been mentioned earlier. God is the need of an individual mind. Religion on the other hand has a larger role to play- it is the need of the society. Religion has a social cause because religion is primarily a system of values and God being an important aspect associated with an individual finds a place in religion. I am not saying that God is subset of religion; rather what I am saying is that God is an important aspect of any religion. Religion touches upon God to such an extent that it becomes its central pillar. Religion in its true sense is intended to unify people on various bases such as a similar way of life and one basis being God. To elaborate further the concept of religion we’ll have to further delve into the rise of society, I however will not indulge in such an escapade at the expense of deviating from the main subject. Religion as I mentioned earlier is a system of values which have been laid out by the wisest of people to guide humanity with the intention of creating an environment that will sustain or is more conducive to the fulfillment of general human cause. All civic societies which circumscribe multiple religious societies have rules that are built upon the ethics prescribed by religions. One of the main functions of a society is to uphold justice – an innate human desire and the foundation to these are in built into all religions.
So the prevalence of God can be traced to the human desire to be at peace with the assurance of the existence of an entity that will prevail over all evil. In other words the belief in God is comforting and a source of happiness thus God need not be introduced to the human mind – it will discover it nonetheless and this very discovery has happened across every known civilization.
- Why does the comforting feeling feel comfortable, why is is pleasure pleasurable and pain painful?
à I believe to explain why some thing is the way it is, we need to firstly understand what it is. So to understand why the comforting feeling feels comfortable, why pleasure is pleasure pleasurable and pain painful, we need to first comprehend what comfort, pleasure and pain are. I shall not distinguish between comfort and pleasure since they are almost synonymous – not literally but at least in this context.
Pleasure is a class of emotions which when ‘perceived’ (needs to be replaced with a more appropriate word) leads to a state of mind for which the mind has an affinity for – this state of mind is happiness. The exact opposite is true for pain. I believe that in its happy state the mind is at a lower level of entropy (due to the lack of a better word) and just like any other system in the universe it too has a tendency to move from a higher level of entropy to a lower thus it yearns for happiness and has an aversion to sadness. It is this stability in a state of happiness and instability in a state of sadness that manifests in the form of desires and pains.
To exemplify we can consider the state of water at a height to have a higher level of potential/entropy. This potential manifests in the form of water ‘desiring’ to flow to a lower height and similarly the opposition that is would put up to a change in its state of lowered potential. So the state of having achieved a lower level of entropy is happiness and the wish move to such a position is desire. Sadness is the state of higher entropy and pain is the emotion that manifests out of being in a sad state.
- What classifies an emotion as pleasurable or painful?
àAn emotion is pleasurable is it leads to happiness or results in an expectation of a state that will lead to happiness. In other words if the emotion ultimately leads to happiness then the emotion is perceived as pleasurable and if it is to lead to sadness then it will be perceived as painful.
- Why is there a desire for pleasure and aversion for pain?
à The desire for pleasure and aversion to pain stems from the fact that the pleasures lead to happiness and pain lead to sadness. The mind is at a lowered state of entropy when happy and heightened state when sad. The fundamental law of the universe that a system has an affinity to move from a state of higher entropy to a lower level manifests in the forms of a desire for pleasure and an aversion to pain. Please note that although I have used the term ‘Entropy’ in conjunction with state of mind, it does not mean that literally. All I am trying to do is to draw a reference to the concept of entropy due to similarity exhibited, in other words I’m just trying to cover up my ignorance J
- Why do desires exist?
à Desires exist because the fulfillment of desires lead to a state for which a system has an affinity for; but this explanation basically transfers the question from one form to another and that is - why does the system have an affinity for such a state, is affinity not desire, is affinity not a synonym for desire. Well the answer to that question is a Yes. Let me try to elaborate the situation that I am right now in – I’m required to explain a phenomenon but fail to do so. Why am I not able to provide an explanation? As you can see every answer to a question can further be questioned and this case is no different. The act of explaining a phenomenon basically involves breaking down the phenomenon into simpler constituents for easy comprehension or providing a parallel perspective to the phenomenon that can be comprehended better. But the problem is that there is a limit to the sub divisions that one can generate; for example it’s like trying to understand a building by breaking it down (not literally) into its constituents. A high rise can be split into its floors that make it, then each floor into constituent rooms, each room into the components that build it up (walls, windows etc). At some point we’ll reach to the level of a brick, one can delve in further and go into the crystalline and molecular structure of the material that the brick is composed of. But looking back it will become obvious that we would have come so far or deviated from the original objective (of understanding the building) that the whole relation of what is being studied or analyzed (the molecular structure of silicon) to the phenomenon that we originally set upon to understand sounds too contrived. I am not saying that we need to consciously keep a limit on level of detailing that we should get into; all I am saying is that we should not get carried away by detailing that the original objective becomes obscure. Another aspect is that there is a limit to the level of detailing that can be achieved. This point is more appropriate here – The truth to all human understanding is that it is all built upon some assumption for example I can explain why an elephant weighs more than a cat – it’s because 5000 Kgs is greater than 2 Kgs but there is no explanation to the fact why 5000 is greater then 2, there is no proof to the fact that 2 is equal to 2. What we are looking right now are the axioms – the fundamental beliefs that are not questioned because “that is why/how things are” these are the universal truths. It is based upon these facts that our knowledge system is built upon, these are the foundations – we dig no further because we cannot.
The existence of desires is I guess an axiom, a basic universal phenomenon, a truth that forms the foundation upon which higher explanations for other phenomenon are built.
Or maybe it’s that I do not have what it takes to answer this question J
- Does the cosmos have a desire?
à I agree to attempt answering this question if I get an assurance that I won’t be questioned why the cosmos has a desireJ.
OK here we go, the cosmos is everything. It’s not an entity or a singularity; it can be conceived as the universal set that contains everything. The concept of something that is said to contain everything will be slightly (read highly) revolting to the human mind as the question “what is the cosmos contained in”, “what lies beyond the boundaries of the cosmos?”, “how can there be something without boundaries?” will all go unanswered. The reason for this can be because our minds are accustomed to trying to fit everything inside our heads and so the concept of cosmos becomes difficult to swallow leave alone digest it.
Anyways, as the cosmos is said to contain everything then everything put together becomes the cosmos. What that leads to is that if desires exist then they too are contained in the cosmos. The existence of desire being a fact implies that the cosmos does have desires – actually not, the cosmos contains entities that have desires but that does not necessarily imply that the cosmos itself has desires. What manifests as desires in the entities is a precursor that exists in the cosmos for example the ‘desire’ to flow exists in water but tracing backwards it can be seen that it is gravity (a property of the earth) that causes the desire in water. In case of water gravity manifests in the form of a desire to flow, in case of a ball it manifests in the form of a desire to roll, with air it manifests in the form of atmospheric pressure, with solids it manifests in the form of a desire to freely fall – the same phenomenon manifests as different desires in different entities in different form. In the same way there, I believe, exist phenomenons (single or multiple) in the cosmos that cause these desires to manifest. At this point of time I am clueless regarding what these phenomenons are and why they exist but am hopeful (that is all I can do) that someday I will know.
- What are the human desires directed towards and why, what does the inclination imply?
à I need a beer to answer this question!
Human desires are directed toward achievement of the human cause. Fulfillment of these desires imparts meaning to a human life. I do not have much of original ideas to contribute in this case but I know for sure that the concept of Purushartha provides prodigious amounts of elaboration on this subject.
- What is the existence of the cosmos aligned to?
à What kind of question is this?
The cosmos is transforming, it is, it always was and it will continue to. I do not know where it is heading to, but I guess its evolving and its evolving for better. To take a cue from what has been going around what we can see is that the non living world has been weathering – everything is moving from a higher state of instability to a lower and this process has been happening in a progressive manner - Iron changes to rust and attains stability, in its rusted form it will be stable as compared to its pure form. Forces of nature are trying to level out rocks & mountains; these forces I feel are trying to bring about a state of equilibrium in the system. What I mean by equilibrium is a state where the opposing forces have been matched and then they coexist in perfect harmony – a stone atop a mountain is in a state of continuous excitement due to its raised potential but once it falls to the ground it achieves harmony with gravity as it shall no fall no further. The living world on the other hand is evolving – this world, I think, is marching towards the attainment of perfection. With every passing generation the living world moves a rung up on the evolutionary ladder. I’ll leave this subject here as I intend to write separately on Evolution some other time.
- Since humans, like everything else, exist as a part of the cosmos does it mean that our desires are the manifestation of the cosmos’s desire?
à This question has been partially been answered under question No.8. I do not think that the cosmos has any desires in literal sense. There might be certain phenomenon within the cosmos that manifest in the form of desires in humans and every entity that has desires. Final Verdict – desires are the manifestation of certain underlying phenomenon in the cosmos but not necessarily cosmos’s own desires. Can these phenomenon’s be termed as cosmos’s ‘desires’ – well that is up to an individual to decide on how they want to look at it.
- Why do these questions exist, is there a desire in the cosmos to know more – if there is then does it mean that the cosmos is not aware of itself in totality and thus the existence of a desire to know (more)?
à As I said, the cosmos does not have desire(s) per se (well that is what I think of it). Whatever underlying phenomenon is manifesting in the form of desires does so in a multitude of forms, these forms typically are directed to a common cause. The desire for knowledge exists because knowledge can be used to predict the outcome of the present, it helps project the future typically by extrapolating the past and the present. Essentially uncertainty results from the non-availability of information about a phenomenon. It is the degree of this non-availability which becomes the measure of uncertainness – total availability implies a certainty and total lack of it would refer to an unknown. There exists this primal fear in humans of the unknown and knowledge can be seen as its antidote. I do not mean to say that the desire for any kind of knowledge is a direct outcome of the fear of the unknown. If desire, in its most rudimentary form, can be considered as a bud then in its advanced form it can be seen as the fully blossomed flower. The flower will have petals which grow outwards in several directions as opposed to the bud state where everything is convolved inwards. For example the desire for food basically is rooted in survival (at a very basic level) but when food becomes aplenty this desire ‘blossoms’ and takes several forms some of them even artistic. The plethora of cuisines that exist today represent the petals that have outgrown from of the bud that represents a basic survival instinct. Similarly, desire for knowledge too can be traced back to something primal.
- Is the desire for knowledge true to itself or is an epiphenomenon?
à I guess the previous answer suggests that the desire for knowledge is a combination of both. At either extremes, of being at the vary basic and the advanced forms, the desire for knowledge surely shown strong signs of being a basic desire and also an epiphenomenon. This however is an illusion. The desire for knowledge, I feel is, is true to itself.
- What is the cosmos – if it is everything then god too must be contained in the cosmos, so is cosmos beyond God or is Cosmos God, if yes then I being part of the cosmos become a part of God. Does that mean my actions and thoughts are that of God – is god operating through me just as god does through everything else in the cosmos?
à Every river has humble beginnings, often forming out of droplets from melting ice or little streams but it soon takes form and transforms into a raging behemoth. Gushing its way over everything that stands in its way, picking up things that are fundamentally not its own and acquiring artificial shades. It may even exhibit characteristics that might be contradictory to the very force that drives it – there might be waves that seem to defy gravity and take aerial leaps. But ultimately the rage dies out as it approaches the sea. It disposes the sediments that it would have picked up, it regains its original color, and it once again becomes what it originally was and ultimately gets reunited with its origin. Now in this limited context the question is “where is god in all this” - is god the river or is god the ocean? The answer to this question takes me back to the origin of this article – God is not an entity, it the ‘everything’ of everything put together, god is the totality of the cosmos. So no matter what form it is in or shade it takes, the river is an attribute of the cosmos. There is no real or unreal form of the river. I too have no real or unreal form - every form is an instance. I, in every form that I assume, am a way the cosmos manifests itself. My physical body is an organ of god and my conscience god’s will.
