This post was prompted by a show I saw on the Discovery Science Channel - How the Universe Works. This was around the so-called dark matter. What struck me was how much of what we call "science" is conjecture, without proof (a scientist would claim it is proof that has not yet been discovered). Further, where physics is concerned, specifically particle/theoretical physics, nothing is intuitive. There is nothing which can be grasped by traditional human senses. The physicist/mathematician comes up with all kinds of mathematics and the rest are asked to just believe.
Now, at the risk of being accused of committing blasphemy against science, I argue that this is not so different from a spiritual seeker. Mind you, I am not using the term religious, but spiritual. The western world is mostly familiar with Abrahamic religions, which are highly anthropomorphic in their concept of God, or are at least highly centred around humans. This may be among the points (apart from God being jealous, or favouring a certain sect over others) that turn a westerner towards atheism. If an Indian becomes an atheist it possibly means he has not explored the land's spiritual principles fully.
The Vedas say parabrahman is indescribable, without form, shape or qualities. This parabrahman is said to take form (any God) for the sake of the spiritual seeker's convenience. A child cannot reach its mother. The mother has to bend down and pick up the child in her arms. The Hindu believes it is the same with God. I am using God and parabrahman interchangeably in this post, and I do not mean a personal God in the Abrahamic sense. The Abrahamic God is what a Hindu would consider saguna brahma, or saakaara, with form. The Islamic concept of Allah is closer to that of nirguna brahma, (without attributes) or niraakara (without form). However, Islam insists God is male. The Hindu says parabrahma has no gender, as that is also an attribute.
Now, a spiritual person seeks God. A scientist seeks truth behind/underlying creation/existence. By definition, God is beyond the senses. So it is deemed futile to prove the existence of God by any material means. Science by definition is within the parameters of this universe. Hence, science can never prove the existence of God. The atheist takes the easy way out and says there is no God. Now, as the common saying goes, absence of proof is not proof of absence. The physicist/atheist does not understand the physical world itself. Nobody knows why something as fundamental as light/radiation behaves as both a wave and a particle. However, the same physicist atheist wants to have proof that God exists. The atheist, who cannot understand the known universe itself wants proof of the energy behind the universe. That is what makes me laugh at the hubris of an atheist. Now an atheist is entitled to his views. But so am I!
The seeker embarks on a long process to realise God. Please note that Hinduism does not talk only about reaching God, but realising God. It says that each and everything in creation has the spark of the divine. Moksha is simply realising this fact. That is all there is to it, nothing else. One must note that realising and knowing are two entirely different things. What separates knowing from realising is avidyaa or maayaa. I say an atheist is lazy. He does not have the patience to embark on the spiritual path to realise God. He takes the easy way out. Now the counter claim would be that he would waste time on embarking on a process which he knows is doomed to fail as there is no God. This is where one laughs again at the hubris.
Let me end with a few poems from the Telugu version of the bhaagavata puraana (apologies upfront for mistakes). This is a translation (with some differences from the Sanskrit original) bt Sri Bammera Potana (पोतना - Hindi transliteration is very painful, does not do justice to Sanskrit or Telugu). Many think that the bhaagavata puraana is a vaishnava purana. It is. However, there is a huge amount of vedaanta and (advaita contained therein) in the puraana (like any Hindu literature).
evvaniche janinchu jagamevvani lOpalanundu leenamai
yevvaniyanduDindu paramESwaruDevvaDu moolakaaraNambevvaDu
anaadimadhyalayuDevvaDu sarvamu taanainavaaDevvadu
vaaninaatmabhavu neeSwarunE SaraNambu vEDedan
I seek refuge in him, from whom the world arises, in whom it exists, in whom it merges and rests, he who is the supreme lord, he who is the primordial cause (behind creation), he who is without beginning, middle or end, he who is everything (creation is his form), he who is self-existent, he who is the lord.
lOkambulu lOkESulu lOkasthulu tegina tudi
alOkambagu penjeekatikavvala evvanDEkaakruti velugu
atani nE sEvintun
I serve him, who shines as One (even) in the unworldly immense darkness after the worlds, their rulers and their denizens cease to exist.
Do these verses call upon a personal God? No. Do they call upon a God with form? No. They talk about the essence and energy that is behind everything that we know as the universe, and is beyond it. Hinduism says, as is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm. Is everything, from me to the universe not made of the same particles? And can a physicist deny the universe is conscious? The physicist is himself part of the universe and is conscious. Human life (without considering others) is conscious. Thus, is the universe not conscious of itself? Hinduism asks the seeker to realise the greater consciousness behind everything. Simple.
I seriously request physicists and atheists to explore vedaanta and then see whether they still retain their concept of atheism.
I seriously request physicists and atheists to explore vedaanta and then see whether they still retain their concept of atheism.
