The existence of God
It is said that one should not doubt the existence of God, but according to logic, if we accept the existence of God without any evidence, it would be considered a superstition. Without personal experience, blindly believing in the existence of God is also another form of superstition. According to you, what should we do? Should we accept or reject the existence of God?
Why not experience it?
The question is clear. If any belief exists without any evidence, without personal experience, it remains only a theory. How can we be a part of that belief when we don't even know the basics, have no personal experience, haven't seen or known anything about it? So, both accepting and rejecting are wrong. What should we believe? Can we ever know who God is? And what to reject if we have never known it? So the question is, why believe and why accept? Why not experience it?
Swimming without getting into the water!
How can we experience swimming without getting into the water? We keep telling the whole world about the techniques and details of swimming, but if we ourselves never go through that experience, how can we know what it feels like when someone actually reaches the water to swim?
Shankaracharya's experience
When Mandan Mishra's wife, Bharti, questioned the experience of household life during the interview, Adi Shankaracharya first used the technique of entering another's body to experience household life and then answered Bharti's questions. However, even though Adi Shankaracharya could give answers based on hearsay experiences, in such a situation, what would be the meaning of the truth of those answers? If they did not go through that feeling themselves, how could they clarify that feeling, and if they did clarify it, then their answer would be false. After experiencing the world, if someone explains the futility or meaningfulness of the world, it reflects a glimpse of the truth."
Mention of Brahman
We often talk about Brahman. There is also a discussion about "Brahman is truth, the world is an illusion." But when it comes to what Brahman is, how it is, how one can attain Brahman, we rely only on discussions. Only a few rare individuals make an effort to experience Brahman and follow the path that can lead them to the direct realization of the ultimate reality. When we talk about Brahman, which refers to the Supreme Soul or God, it is an experience, a self-realization. How can someone else's attainment, someone else's observations, someone else's knowledge be your experience?
Existence of God
But we, as human beings, want to know whether God exists or not based on the experiences of others. Whether tea is sweet or bland, only the one who drinks it can experience it. How a touch feels can only be described by the particular sensitivity of one's skin. How an emotion feels can only be explained by the one who experiences it. The same situation applies to the nature of Brahman or the experience of the ultimate reality. Here, self-knowledge is required, not borrowed knowledge or hearsay. If we say that God is indescribable, unimaginable, limitless, omnipresent, formless, and eternal, how can we believe it? If we have come to know God, then how can God be indescribable, unimaginable, and imperceptible? In that case, the qualifications used for God are futile. And if we haven't personally experienced that God is limitless, indescribable, and imperceptible, then making claims about someone else's experience is pointless, just empty preaching.
Blind faith
So, without knowing, both believing and not believing fall into the category of blind faith. This applies to every aspect of life. When it comes to the existence of Brahman or God, it is comical to discuss its existence or non-existence without experiencing Brahman or understanding the methods to know it.
Knowledge-worthy matter
Often, those who believe in God are called theists, and those who deny God's existence are called atheists. This is also a profound matter worth knowing. Among all the theists worldwide, they always live in doubt regarding the existence of God. Their range of beliefs is such that if God exists, then denying it won't be considered a fault or a sin. And if God doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter. This is a faith filled with doubt, a kind of disbelief. In other words, they don't know anything; they simply accept it because people have been saying it, they start worshiping, going to temples, bowing their heads in front of idols, but their faith is weak.
We don't know anything...
Because we don't know anything. It is said that the knowledgeable ones say that God exists, is omnipotent, and immortal, so we also accepted it without knowing. However, because we have never personally known, we immediately become filled with disbelief if someone says that God doesn't exist. We keep hoping and praying, thinking that if a desire is fulfilled, we will be filled with faith for some time. But after a while, if another desire remains unfulfilled, doubt fills us again, whether God exists or not. It is like standing in front of an empty stone and continuing to bow one's head, knowing that nothing is there.
Faith filled with doubt
So, this is a faith filled with doubt, and it is also a form of atheism. Today, we don't believe, but tomorrow, in some difficulty, in order to test it, we try believing and if, by chance, things work out, our faith changes, and we become devote.
All this is futile...
We cannot see atomic structures with our own eyes, so we seek the assistance of microscopes. Every physical substance can be seen or touched in some way. However, energy can only be understood as a form of transformation. Similarly, the nature or existence of Brahman can only be understood through the method of knowing it. For this, the use of any physical instrument is indeed futile. So, instead of having faith or disbelief, it is useful to follow the method of knowing, but prior to that, there should be a strong thirst, aspiration, and intense longing to know it.
Comments
Post a Comment