" Oh My God "
Reanswering The Question's
MENU
Join Us On Facebook
©
All Rights Reserved
Chaitanya Charan Das
Monday 22 July 2013
Q32. At the end of OMG, Kanjibhai throws away Krishna’s keychain to avoid idolatry. Do we need to similarly discard everything connected with God to avoid idolatry?
This
incident is a classic example of how scripturally uninformed logic
ends in iconophobia, the irrational fear of material
representations of God.
The underlying thread of such logic is valid, but its conclusion isn’t. The valid thread of logic is as follows: When we worship a material representation of God, we will over time focus only on that material representation and forget God whom we were intending to worship. Thus, the logic goes, the material representation will become a competitor to God and will take for itself the worship that was meant for God. That’s why, the logic concludes, no such representation should be worshiped and if it is already being worshiped then that worship should be stopped.
This course of events may be a logical possibility, but it is not a universal necessity. It won’t happen when there is proper education about the nature of Deity worship. This education informs us that God is spiritual and the ultimate goal of life is to rise to the spiritual level of consciousness and enter into the ultimate spiritual reality: God’s eternal world of love. With such a spiritual-centric understanding, the Deity is never seen as material and is never regarded as something separate from God. So the Deity never becomes a competitor to God; all the worship offered to the Deity automatically goes to God. Devotion to the Deity doesn’t distract us from devotion to God, but enhances our devotion to God. In fact, such devotion becomes non-different from devotion to God.
Education can provide us a similar spiritual vision of things connected with God. Those things can remind us of God and nourish our devotion to him. That’s why far from rejecting them we should cherish them. The Srimad Bhagavatam (11.6.46) glorifies their purifying potency: there the great devotee Uddhava speaks to Krishna, “Simply by decorating ourselves with the garlands, fragrant oils, clothes and ornaments that you have already enjoyed, and by eating the remnants of your meals, we, your servants, will indeed conquer your illusory energy.”
The iconophobia demonstrated in rejecting Krishna’s keychain ends in logical absurdity. If the keychain can lead to idolatry, then even the vision of Krishna when he manifests himself can also lead to idolatry. Just as the keychain was limited, so was the form of Krishna that was revealed to Kanjibhai. And both were manifest to material vision. So, if one has to be rejected, then why not the other? And if Kanjibhai had to actually adhere to this iconophobia, then just as he threw away Krishna’s keychain, he would have had to push away Krishna too when Krishna first came to his rescue. Because if there had never been any icon, any representation of Krishna through matter, then Kanjibhai would never have known what Krishna looked like. So when Krishna himself appeared before him, Kanjibhai would not have known that this was Krishna. Due to the dogmatic belief that nothing material can represent God, he would have had to consider Krishna himself to be some material representation of God. And like all other icons, he would have had to reject Krishna. Then what would have happened to Kanjibhai?
To conclude, this final incident is a perfect metaphor of the danger of OMG-type critiques of religion: they intend to expose the bad within religion. And there is much that is bad in religion as it exists today, blind faith in self-serving godmen being a tragic example. Such blind faith must be eradicated. By raising sound, sensible questions about issues that most people unthinkingly accept, OMG has forced many people to think and thereby given a boost to the drvie against blind faith. The problems it has underscored are real and grave. But their solution lies not in rejection of everything religious but in education of the actual purpose of religion so as to arrive at the balance of intelligent, discriminating belief.
When fake currency circulates in the economy, the government warns people about it. But if the government depicts all currency to be false, then it does a disservice. It needs to educate people to distinguish genuine currency from fake currency. Similarly, much of what goes on in the name of religion today is fake in the sense that it doesn’t fulfill the purpose of religion. The movie tells about the ‘fake religious currency.’ But someone has to tell about the actual currency – the real purpose of religion. This book, I hope, will make a small contribution towards that much-needed education.
The underlying thread of such logic is valid, but its conclusion isn’t. The valid thread of logic is as follows: When we worship a material representation of God, we will over time focus only on that material representation and forget God whom we were intending to worship. Thus, the logic goes, the material representation will become a competitor to God and will take for itself the worship that was meant for God. That’s why, the logic concludes, no such representation should be worshiped and if it is already being worshiped then that worship should be stopped.
This course of events may be a logical possibility, but it is not a universal necessity. It won’t happen when there is proper education about the nature of Deity worship. This education informs us that God is spiritual and the ultimate goal of life is to rise to the spiritual level of consciousness and enter into the ultimate spiritual reality: God’s eternal world of love. With such a spiritual-centric understanding, the Deity is never seen as material and is never regarded as something separate from God. So the Deity never becomes a competitor to God; all the worship offered to the Deity automatically goes to God. Devotion to the Deity doesn’t distract us from devotion to God, but enhances our devotion to God. In fact, such devotion becomes non-different from devotion to God.
Education can provide us a similar spiritual vision of things connected with God. Those things can remind us of God and nourish our devotion to him. That’s why far from rejecting them we should cherish them. The Srimad Bhagavatam (11.6.46) glorifies their purifying potency: there the great devotee Uddhava speaks to Krishna, “Simply by decorating ourselves with the garlands, fragrant oils, clothes and ornaments that you have already enjoyed, and by eating the remnants of your meals, we, your servants, will indeed conquer your illusory energy.”
The iconophobia demonstrated in rejecting Krishna’s keychain ends in logical absurdity. If the keychain can lead to idolatry, then even the vision of Krishna when he manifests himself can also lead to idolatry. Just as the keychain was limited, so was the form of Krishna that was revealed to Kanjibhai. And both were manifest to material vision. So, if one has to be rejected, then why not the other? And if Kanjibhai had to actually adhere to this iconophobia, then just as he threw away Krishna’s keychain, he would have had to push away Krishna too when Krishna first came to his rescue. Because if there had never been any icon, any representation of Krishna through matter, then Kanjibhai would never have known what Krishna looked like. So when Krishna himself appeared before him, Kanjibhai would not have known that this was Krishna. Due to the dogmatic belief that nothing material can represent God, he would have had to consider Krishna himself to be some material representation of God. And like all other icons, he would have had to reject Krishna. Then what would have happened to Kanjibhai?
To conclude, this final incident is a perfect metaphor of the danger of OMG-type critiques of religion: they intend to expose the bad within religion. And there is much that is bad in religion as it exists today, blind faith in self-serving godmen being a tragic example. Such blind faith must be eradicated. By raising sound, sensible questions about issues that most people unthinkingly accept, OMG has forced many people to think and thereby given a boost to the drvie against blind faith. The problems it has underscored are real and grave. But their solution lies not in rejection of everything religious but in education of the actual purpose of religion so as to arrive at the balance of intelligent, discriminating belief.
When fake currency circulates in the economy, the government warns people about it. But if the government depicts all currency to be false, then it does a disservice. It needs to educate people to distinguish genuine currency from fake currency. Similarly, much of what goes on in the name of religion today is fake in the sense that it doesn’t fulfill the purpose of religion. The movie tells about the ‘fake religious currency.’ But someone has to tell about the actual currency – the real purpose of religion. This book, I hope, will make a small contribution towards that much-needed education.
Q31. Is the worship of Deities a tool meant for less intelligent people, a tool that should be given up once one becomes spiritually advanced?
Not at all.
It is true that Deity worship is especially essential for those who are spiritually under-evolved. As they can’t perceive that God is present everywhere, he manifests within their sense perception as the Deity. Thereby they can at least begin their God consciousness by respecting him as the Deity.
But the fact that Deity worship is essential for the under-evolved doesn’t imply that it is meant only for them or that those more evolved should give it up.
To properly understand the relationship of Deity worship with spiritual advancement, let’s first understand how the Srimad Bhagavatam (11.2.45-47) classifies devotees based on the level of their God consciousness:
• Kanishtha-adikhari (third level): Devotees at this level perceive God only in the Deity and nowhere else. The spirituality of these devotees is limited only to the temple or the home-altar; they can’t perceive God’s relationship with other people and aspects of their life.
• Madhyama-adhikari (second level): Devotees at this level understand that their God consciousness depends not only on how they see the Deity, but also on how they relate with the things and people of the world. Accordingly, in addition to worshipping the Deity, these devotees befriend other devotees, help the uninformed and avoid those inimical towards God.
• Uttama-adhikari (first-level): Devotees at this level are so advanced that they can perceive God’s presence everywhere. This does not mean that they worship everything as if it is God or that they give up worshipping the Deity as if it is not God. It means that everything in the world reminds them of God just as everything reminds a lover of the beloved.
So, whereas the third-level devotees need the Deity to remember God, the first-level devotees don’t. But this doesn’t mean that the first-level devotees neglect or reject the Deity. Not at all. Rather, due to their great love for God, they serve the Deity with even greater devotion.
The notion that Deity worship is for the less intelligent is a misconception propagated by those averse to serving the Deity. To mask their aversion, they self-servingly claim that they are more intelligent and so don’t need the Deity worship that is meant for less intelligent people. But the fact is that even the less intelligent or the third-level devotees can perceive God’s presence as the Deity and so are inclined to serve the Deity. Those who can’t see God’s presence as the Deity are below even these third-level devotees.
If only they would open their mind to understand the profound philosophy underlying Deity worship, then they would realize how the Deity manifestation is a great blessing of God for all levels of spiritual aspirants; everyone’s remembrance of God becomes enriched by beholding and serving the Deity. Otherwise, though they may claim to be more intelligent, they will, unfortunately, remain less than less-intelligent.
It is true that Deity worship is especially essential for those who are spiritually under-evolved. As they can’t perceive that God is present everywhere, he manifests within their sense perception as the Deity. Thereby they can at least begin their God consciousness by respecting him as the Deity.
But the fact that Deity worship is essential for the under-evolved doesn’t imply that it is meant only for them or that those more evolved should give it up.
To properly understand the relationship of Deity worship with spiritual advancement, let’s first understand how the Srimad Bhagavatam (11.2.45-47) classifies devotees based on the level of their God consciousness:
• Kanishtha-adikhari (third level): Devotees at this level perceive God only in the Deity and nowhere else. The spirituality of these devotees is limited only to the temple or the home-altar; they can’t perceive God’s relationship with other people and aspects of their life.
• Madhyama-adhikari (second level): Devotees at this level understand that their God consciousness depends not only on how they see the Deity, but also on how they relate with the things and people of the world. Accordingly, in addition to worshipping the Deity, these devotees befriend other devotees, help the uninformed and avoid those inimical towards God.
• Uttama-adhikari (first-level): Devotees at this level are so advanced that they can perceive God’s presence everywhere. This does not mean that they worship everything as if it is God or that they give up worshipping the Deity as if it is not God. It means that everything in the world reminds them of God just as everything reminds a lover of the beloved.
So, whereas the third-level devotees need the Deity to remember God, the first-level devotees don’t. But this doesn’t mean that the first-level devotees neglect or reject the Deity. Not at all. Rather, due to their great love for God, they serve the Deity with even greater devotion.
The notion that Deity worship is for the less intelligent is a misconception propagated by those averse to serving the Deity. To mask their aversion, they self-servingly claim that they are more intelligent and so don’t need the Deity worship that is meant for less intelligent people. But the fact is that even the less intelligent or the third-level devotees can perceive God’s presence as the Deity and so are inclined to serve the Deity. Those who can’t see God’s presence as the Deity are below even these third-level devotees.
If only they would open their mind to understand the profound philosophy underlying Deity worship, then they would realize how the Deity manifestation is a great blessing of God for all levels of spiritual aspirants; everyone’s remembrance of God becomes enriched by beholding and serving the Deity. Otherwise, though they may claim to be more intelligent, they will, unfortunately, remain less than less-intelligent.
Q30. The stone image can’t even wave away a fly on its face. It can be broken by vandals. How can such an image be God?
When
God manifests himself through any material manifestation, the divinity
of that manifestation is demonstrated not by its potency to
break material laws, but by its potency to bring about spiritual
transformation among the sincerely devoted.
To understand this, let’s consider another material manifestation of the divine: the scriptures. Many of those who object to the practice of Deity worship still consider the scriptures sacred. Frequently they even worship those sacred texts as if they were divine. Yet can those sacred texts not be torn or burnt by the faithless? Obviously, they can be. But does this make them any less divine? Not at all. The divinity of these texts cannot be experienced by defiantly tearing them apart to check whether they miraculously save themselves. Their divinity can be experienced only by reading them with a devotional service attitude. The same principle applies to the Deity.
Can the Deity not wave away the fly? He can, but he doesn’t. Why? Because the Lord does not manifest himself as the Deity to prove his omnipotence. In fact, the Lord generally does not manifest his omnipotence in this material world. Why? Because this world is provided as a facility for those souls who want to enjoy separate from God. All of us were originally with God in his eternal spiritual kingdom, but we wanted to enjoy by imitating him instead of serving him. By this desire, we exiled ourselves to this material
world to play out our fantasies of becoming the best – of becoming God. But God being supreme is eternally the best in everything. If he were to manifest his omnipotence in this word, then nobody would have any chance to play God. So, he graciously facilitates our desire to enjoy separate from him by not directly manifesting his omnipotence here.
God waits patiently for us to learn our lessons. He wants us to realize for ourselves that, no matter how big and powerful we become, we can never be happy without loving him. So, he allows us to love whatever we want. But he also tirelessly waits for us to turn to him. As soon as we get the slightest such desire, He starts providing us facilities to love him again. One of the most important of such facilities is the Deity. The Deity offers us what no other divine manifestation does: the opportunity to serve God personally by beholding, bowing down, praying, touching, bathing, dressing, decorating and offering food.
At the ordinary levels of religion – the levels of fear and desire, people worship God and demand protection and prosperity in exchange for the worship. Deity worship offers the opportunity to worship God at a much loftier level of love wherein the devotees consider themselves servants of God and want to offer him everything they possibly can – including protection.
Therefore, devotees consider it their prime duty to do everything to prevent the Deity from being vandalized. God manifests himself
as the Deity not to prove his omnipotence to those bent on defying him, but to give a facility for those eager to serve him. When the faithless try to desecrate the Deity, the Lord simply unmanifests himself from the Deity so that they can inflate their illusion by imagining that there is no God in the Deity. Of course, defiant acts like desecrating the Deities or desecrating sacred texts will eventually lead to grievous karmic consequences. Do such acts demonstrate the absence of God in the Deity? Not at all to those who understand the purpose of the Deity manifestation. To them, such acts only demonstrate the utter absence of genuine God consciousness among the vandals.
Coming to the fly question, how should we respond on seeing a fly near the Deity on the altar? Philosophically, we should understand that the Deity has allowed the fly there to graphically show how we are neglecting our service to the Deity, how we are not keeping the altar clean. Practically, we should hasten to remove the fly and make arrangements by which flies will not disturb the Deity again. The point is that the devotees see the Deity as a special, invited divine guest and so feel duty-bound, in fact love-bound, to offer the Deity the best possible service.
Although God can never be insulted, that he manifests himself in forms that can apparently be disrespected is a sign of his extraordinary love for us. This is beautifully expressed by Pillai Lokacharya, a great South Indian saintly teacher: “This is the greatest grace of the Lord, that being free He becomes bound, being independent He becomes dependent for all his service on the devotee... In other forms, man belonged to God. But behold the supreme sacrifice of Ishvara [Krishna] in the form of the murti, for here the almighty becomes the property of the devotee.... He carries the Lord about, fans him, feeds him, plays with him-yea, the Infinite has become finite, that the child soul may grasp, understand, and love him.”
To understand this, let’s consider another material manifestation of the divine: the scriptures. Many of those who object to the practice of Deity worship still consider the scriptures sacred. Frequently they even worship those sacred texts as if they were divine. Yet can those sacred texts not be torn or burnt by the faithless? Obviously, they can be. But does this make them any less divine? Not at all. The divinity of these texts cannot be experienced by defiantly tearing them apart to check whether they miraculously save themselves. Their divinity can be experienced only by reading them with a devotional service attitude. The same principle applies to the Deity.
Can the Deity not wave away the fly? He can, but he doesn’t. Why? Because the Lord does not manifest himself as the Deity to prove his omnipotence. In fact, the Lord generally does not manifest his omnipotence in this material world. Why? Because this world is provided as a facility for those souls who want to enjoy separate from God. All of us were originally with God in his eternal spiritual kingdom, but we wanted to enjoy by imitating him instead of serving him. By this desire, we exiled ourselves to this material
world to play out our fantasies of becoming the best – of becoming God. But God being supreme is eternally the best in everything. If he were to manifest his omnipotence in this word, then nobody would have any chance to play God. So, he graciously facilitates our desire to enjoy separate from him by not directly manifesting his omnipotence here.
God waits patiently for us to learn our lessons. He wants us to realize for ourselves that, no matter how big and powerful we become, we can never be happy without loving him. So, he allows us to love whatever we want. But he also tirelessly waits for us to turn to him. As soon as we get the slightest such desire, He starts providing us facilities to love him again. One of the most important of such facilities is the Deity. The Deity offers us what no other divine manifestation does: the opportunity to serve God personally by beholding, bowing down, praying, touching, bathing, dressing, decorating and offering food.
At the ordinary levels of religion – the levels of fear and desire, people worship God and demand protection and prosperity in exchange for the worship. Deity worship offers the opportunity to worship God at a much loftier level of love wherein the devotees consider themselves servants of God and want to offer him everything they possibly can – including protection.
Therefore, devotees consider it their prime duty to do everything to prevent the Deity from being vandalized. God manifests himself
as the Deity not to prove his omnipotence to those bent on defying him, but to give a facility for those eager to serve him. When the faithless try to desecrate the Deity, the Lord simply unmanifests himself from the Deity so that they can inflate their illusion by imagining that there is no God in the Deity. Of course, defiant acts like desecrating the Deities or desecrating sacred texts will eventually lead to grievous karmic consequences. Do such acts demonstrate the absence of God in the Deity? Not at all to those who understand the purpose of the Deity manifestation. To them, such acts only demonstrate the utter absence of genuine God consciousness among the vandals.
Coming to the fly question, how should we respond on seeing a fly near the Deity on the altar? Philosophically, we should understand that the Deity has allowed the fly there to graphically show how we are neglecting our service to the Deity, how we are not keeping the altar clean. Practically, we should hasten to remove the fly and make arrangements by which flies will not disturb the Deity again. The point is that the devotees see the Deity as a special, invited divine guest and so feel duty-bound, in fact love-bound, to offer the Deity the best possible service.
Although God can never be insulted, that he manifests himself in forms that can apparently be disrespected is a sign of his extraordinary love for us. This is beautifully expressed by Pillai Lokacharya, a great South Indian saintly teacher: “This is the greatest grace of the Lord, that being free He becomes bound, being independent He becomes dependent for all his service on the devotee... In other forms, man belonged to God. But behold the supreme sacrifice of Ishvara [Krishna] in the form of the murti, for here the almighty becomes the property of the devotee.... He carries the Lord about, fans him, feeds him, plays with him-yea, the Infinite has become finite, that the child soul may grasp, understand, and love him.”
Q29. The stone image is limited, whereas God is unlimited. How can it be God?
By
this argument, even the form of Krishna that Kanjibhai saw in OMG is
false, because even that form was limited. In fact, by this argument, no
one will be able to see God because none of us can see anything
unlimited. Our eyes forever limit what we can see. Thus, this argument,
if true, will create a permanent, unbreakable barrier between us and God.
That’s why the argument needs to be critically examined. It is true that God is unlimited but does that necessarily imply that he can’t manifest in a limited form? Such an idea superficially seems to preserve God’s unlimitedness, but actually ends up limiting him by making him incapable of doing something: manifesting in a specific form.
The Vedic wisdom-tradition explains that God manifests himself in many forms: as an all-pervading impersonal light called Brahmajyoti and as an all-attractive person called Bhagavan. If God didn’t have both these manifestations, then he would be incomplete and so would not be God.
To understand why, let’s first look at the definition of God. The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God as the source of everything. Janmady asya yatah. Another ancient text, the Brahma-Samhita (5.1), defines God similarly as the cause of all causes sarva karana- karanam. This concise definition of God is essentially in agreement with the understanding of God given by all the theistic traditions of the world. So, if God is the source of everything that we see in this world, then he should possess the essential attributes of everything, else he would be lesser than his creation. In this world, there exist both personal beings and impersonal forces, so both these aspects should be present in God. If God were not a person, then he, who by definition is the Complete Being, would be incomplete. Another simpler way of putting this is: if we as the children of God are persons, how can our father, God, not be a person? So, those who say that God is not a person are actually limiting him, by divesting him of what his creation has.
Now let’s consider the question: do personality and form not limit God? The Vedic wisdom-tradition helps us understand that what causes limitation is not form, but matter. Due to the very nature of matter, all material objects are limited, whether they have form or not. When we think of God’s form, we subconsciously project our conceptions of matter on the form of God and so think that a form would limit God. But God is not material; he is entirely spiritual. Spirit has characteristics different from matter; that which is spiritual has the potential to be unlimited, irrespective of whether it has form or not. So God’s form being spiritual does not limit him. This is how, due to his being spiritual, God is a person with a form and is still unlimited.
Now let’s consider the question: can God manifest in a stone image that is a limited material form? God’s unlimitedness requires that he be able to do anything; if there is something that he can’t do, that would limit him. So his inability to manifest as a stone image would limit him. But then his manifesting as a stone image would also limit him to a limited form.
The way out of this dilemma is again by God’s omnipotence. He preserves his unlimitedness not by becoming unable to manifest in a limited form, but by manifesting in unlimited such Deity forms. The Brahma Samhita, an important scripture, confirms this. advaitam acyutam anadim ananta rupam He has no peers; he never falls; he has no beginning and he manifests in innumerable forms.
The fact that the unlimited manifests in so many limited forms in various parts of the world as the temple Deities is an expression of his unlimited love for all of us limited beings.
That’s why the argument needs to be critically examined. It is true that God is unlimited but does that necessarily imply that he can’t manifest in a limited form? Such an idea superficially seems to preserve God’s unlimitedness, but actually ends up limiting him by making him incapable of doing something: manifesting in a specific form.
The Vedic wisdom-tradition explains that God manifests himself in many forms: as an all-pervading impersonal light called Brahmajyoti and as an all-attractive person called Bhagavan. If God didn’t have both these manifestations, then he would be incomplete and so would not be God.
To understand why, let’s first look at the definition of God. The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God as the source of everything. Janmady asya yatah. Another ancient text, the Brahma-Samhita (5.1), defines God similarly as the cause of all causes sarva karana- karanam. This concise definition of God is essentially in agreement with the understanding of God given by all the theistic traditions of the world. So, if God is the source of everything that we see in this world, then he should possess the essential attributes of everything, else he would be lesser than his creation. In this world, there exist both personal beings and impersonal forces, so both these aspects should be present in God. If God were not a person, then he, who by definition is the Complete Being, would be incomplete. Another simpler way of putting this is: if we as the children of God are persons, how can our father, God, not be a person? So, those who say that God is not a person are actually limiting him, by divesting him of what his creation has.
Now let’s consider the question: do personality and form not limit God? The Vedic wisdom-tradition helps us understand that what causes limitation is not form, but matter. Due to the very nature of matter, all material objects are limited, whether they have form or not. When we think of God’s form, we subconsciously project our conceptions of matter on the form of God and so think that a form would limit God. But God is not material; he is entirely spiritual. Spirit has characteristics different from matter; that which is spiritual has the potential to be unlimited, irrespective of whether it has form or not. So God’s form being spiritual does not limit him. This is how, due to his being spiritual, God is a person with a form and is still unlimited.
Now let’s consider the question: can God manifest in a stone image that is a limited material form? God’s unlimitedness requires that he be able to do anything; if there is something that he can’t do, that would limit him. So his inability to manifest as a stone image would limit him. But then his manifesting as a stone image would also limit him to a limited form.
The way out of this dilemma is again by God’s omnipotence. He preserves his unlimitedness not by becoming unable to manifest in a limited form, but by manifesting in unlimited such Deity forms. The Brahma Samhita, an important scripture, confirms this. advaitam acyutam anadim ananta rupam He has no peers; he never falls; he has no beginning and he manifests in innumerable forms.
The fact that the unlimited manifests in so many limited forms in various parts of the world as the temple Deities is an expression of his unlimited love for all of us limited beings.
Q28. How can a stone image be God?
Can
we stop God from manifesting through a stone image if he so desires? He
is omnipotent; he can convert matter into spirit and can transform a
stone image into a divine manifestation known as the archa-avatara
(the incarnation for receving worship). Contemporary Vedic savants
refer to this manifestation as the Deity to differentiate it from ordinary stone images.
In fact, those who claim that God cannot manifest himself through matter are limiting God and depriving him of his omnipotence. Does matter have so much power that it can counter God’s omnipotence and prevent him from manifesting through matter? Obviously not.
They may argue that matter is impure, whereas God is pure. But is the impurity of matter greater than the purity of God? Wouldn’t that imply that the potency of matter is greater than that of God? That would be a logical absurdity. Therefore, the correct understanding is that, God, if he so desires, can surely manifest through matter. And when he does so, he never becomes impure by contact with matter; rather, by his contact, matter becomes pure.
So, if we want to understand Deity worship, we have to stop obsessing on the obvious fact that the image is made of stone – everyone knows it and no one denies it. Yet why do people – and not just ordinary people but even many of the greatest saints and the greatest spiritual scholars – worship that image? Because they can see something more than the obvious fact. They can see in action the profound truth of God’s omnipotence.
And because it is God’s will that makes Deity worship possible, it is essential that we worship the Deity according to his will. This means that we should fashion the stone image according to his will as revealed in the scriptures, and not according to our own imagination.
God doesn’t manifest in an image fashioned as per our imagination. Such an image is a mere lifeless statue, like the statues of politicians that we find on many street squares. Such a statue may help people remember the politician, but beyond that it has no connection with the actual person. That person is a soul who if alive is residing in his or her own material body or if dead has gone to some other body according to his or her karma. Worshiping such a statue as if it were divine is a form of idolatry and should certainly be given up. That’s why, as depicted in OMG, Kanjibhai is perfectly justified in lopping of the head of his own stone image and vehemently forbidding that kind of worship.
What is unjustified, however, is to extrapolate from the rejection of that kind of worship and reject all forms of image worship. Such unwarranted extrapolation limits our access to God. Why? Because presently we can perceive the world only through our material senses. As these senses cannot perceive spirit, our current perception is limited to matter and material things. So, if God does not manifest himself through matter, then we will never be able to perceive him. And without perceiving him, developing our love for him will be extremely difficult. That’s why out of his kindness he makes himself accessible to us as the Deity.
The Deity is different from an ordinary stone idol in two significant ways. Firstly, the form of the Deity is fashioned precisely according to the description of the form of God given in the scriptures. Secondly, God’s presence is invoked as the Deity through the scripturally prescribed ceremony called the prana-pratistha. During this ceremony, the great devotees of God request him to manifest as the Deity and to thereby provide them the opportunity to see and serve him. Mercifully responding to their prayers, God manifests as the Deity. Thereafter, any worship offered to the Deity form directly reaches God just as a letter placed in an authorized letter box reaches the destination. In contrast, just as placing the letter in any ordinary box is futile, worshiping any ordinary statue is futile.
So it is not that any ordinary stone image is treated as God; rather, God manifests through a specially designed and sanctified stone image to help us love and serve him.
In fact, those who claim that God cannot manifest himself through matter are limiting God and depriving him of his omnipotence. Does matter have so much power that it can counter God’s omnipotence and prevent him from manifesting through matter? Obviously not.
They may argue that matter is impure, whereas God is pure. But is the impurity of matter greater than the purity of God? Wouldn’t that imply that the potency of matter is greater than that of God? That would be a logical absurdity. Therefore, the correct understanding is that, God, if he so desires, can surely manifest through matter. And when he does so, he never becomes impure by contact with matter; rather, by his contact, matter becomes pure.
So, if we want to understand Deity worship, we have to stop obsessing on the obvious fact that the image is made of stone – everyone knows it and no one denies it. Yet why do people – and not just ordinary people but even many of the greatest saints and the greatest spiritual scholars – worship that image? Because they can see something more than the obvious fact. They can see in action the profound truth of God’s omnipotence.
And because it is God’s will that makes Deity worship possible, it is essential that we worship the Deity according to his will. This means that we should fashion the stone image according to his will as revealed in the scriptures, and not according to our own imagination.
God doesn’t manifest in an image fashioned as per our imagination. Such an image is a mere lifeless statue, like the statues of politicians that we find on many street squares. Such a statue may help people remember the politician, but beyond that it has no connection with the actual person. That person is a soul who if alive is residing in his or her own material body or if dead has gone to some other body according to his or her karma. Worshiping such a statue as if it were divine is a form of idolatry and should certainly be given up. That’s why, as depicted in OMG, Kanjibhai is perfectly justified in lopping of the head of his own stone image and vehemently forbidding that kind of worship.
What is unjustified, however, is to extrapolate from the rejection of that kind of worship and reject all forms of image worship. Such unwarranted extrapolation limits our access to God. Why? Because presently we can perceive the world only through our material senses. As these senses cannot perceive spirit, our current perception is limited to matter and material things. So, if God does not manifest himself through matter, then we will never be able to perceive him. And without perceiving him, developing our love for him will be extremely difficult. That’s why out of his kindness he makes himself accessible to us as the Deity.
The Deity is different from an ordinary stone idol in two significant ways. Firstly, the form of the Deity is fashioned precisely according to the description of the form of God given in the scriptures. Secondly, God’s presence is invoked as the Deity through the scripturally prescribed ceremony called the prana-pratistha. During this ceremony, the great devotees of God request him to manifest as the Deity and to thereby provide them the opportunity to see and serve him. Mercifully responding to their prayers, God manifests as the Deity. Thereafter, any worship offered to the Deity form directly reaches God just as a letter placed in an authorized letter box reaches the destination. In contrast, just as placing the letter in any ordinary box is futile, worshiping any ordinary statue is futile.
So it is not that any ordinary stone image is treated as God; rather, God manifests through a specially designed and sanctified stone image to help us love and serve him.
Q27. When God is present everywhere, why should we worship him in the temple images?
Certainly,
God is present everywhere, but is he accessible to us everywhere?
Water is present everywhere in the air as water vapor, but can
we just hang out our tongue and access that water whenever we feel
thirsty? No; we need to go to a tap. Similarly, though God is present
everywhere, we need his accessible form as manifested in the temples.
The need for an accessible manifestation of God is indispensable. Even in the imaginary storyline of OMG, God appears before Kanjibhai in a materially visible form and protects him in miraculous ways. Only on seeing this form does he get converted. Thus, even a skeptic who rejects all material manifestations of God needs a material manifestation to develop his faith.
In real-life, unlike in OMG’s imaginary storyline, God doesn’t appear personally to each one of us – at least not till we are adequately purified. Then how can we access God? To help us, those saintly people who have seen him as he actually is in his transcendental form have described that form for us. Moreover, the scriptures tell us that we can and should depict God according to that description, for if we worship him devotedly he will accept our worship.
A movie scriptwriter may fictitiously make God speak that Deity worship is unnecessary, but that statement expresses the opinion of the scriptwriter, not the will of God. To know God’s will, we have to refer to the scriptures. And the scriptures strongly and repeatedly endorse Deity worship. For example, the Uddhava-Gita (Krishna’s instructions to Uddhava) comprises the largest philosophical section of the great devotional classic, the Srimad Bhagavatam, and it includes one full chapter (11.27) on Deity worship. Thus here the same Krishna in whose mouth OMG puts words condemning Deity worship speaks his actual will, enjoining Deity worship. Many other Puranas glorify Deity worship. And the Pancharatras are an entire library of books that systematically elucidate the principles and practices of Deity worship.
The need for an accessible manifestation of God is indispensable. Even in the imaginary storyline of OMG, God appears before Kanjibhai in a materially visible form and protects him in miraculous ways. Only on seeing this form does he get converted. Thus, even a skeptic who rejects all material manifestations of God needs a material manifestation to develop his faith.
In real-life, unlike in OMG’s imaginary storyline, God doesn’t appear personally to each one of us – at least not till we are adequately purified. Then how can we access God? To help us, those saintly people who have seen him as he actually is in his transcendental form have described that form for us. Moreover, the scriptures tell us that we can and should depict God according to that description, for if we worship him devotedly he will accept our worship.
A movie scriptwriter may fictitiously make God speak that Deity worship is unnecessary, but that statement expresses the opinion of the scriptwriter, not the will of God. To know God’s will, we have to refer to the scriptures. And the scriptures strongly and repeatedly endorse Deity worship. For example, the Uddhava-Gita (Krishna’s instructions to Uddhava) comprises the largest philosophical section of the great devotional classic, the Srimad Bhagavatam, and it includes one full chapter (11.27) on Deity worship. Thus here the same Krishna in whose mouth OMG puts words condemning Deity worship speaks his actual will, enjoining Deity worship. Many other Puranas glorify Deity worship. And the Pancharatras are an entire library of books that systematically elucidate the principles and practices of Deity worship.
Q26. Why do we need big temples when God doesn’t need them?
God
doesn’t need them; we do. By expressing our love to God, we deepen our
relationship with him, just as a child by giving a birthday gift to the
parent deepens that relationship.
And the gifts need to be offered according to the stature of the person. We spend millions of rupees to arrange for the reception of the President of America when he comes to India. Then if the President of all Presidents, the Supreme Person God himself descends, shouldn’t we offer him a reception befitting his stature?
And the temple is not just a place for religious worship; it offers many valuable services to society. These services can be summarized in the acronym TEMPLE (Tranquility Education Medication Purification Love Engagement):
1. Tranquility: The temple atmosphere with its soothing vi- brations of holy chants and the sanctifying presence of the Deity serves as a tranquil retreat center. It offers essential refreshing breaks that empower people to face the stress- es of life. To get similar breaks, many people seek enter- tainment, which is an industry costing millions. When we don’t object to the money spent on arranging for that sort of breaks, then why object to money being spent on ar- ranging for spiritual breaks that offer similar and arguably better refreshment for many religious people?
2. Education: The temple serves as a center for higher spiri- tual education wherein people learn principles and prac- tices for leading a life of moral and spiritual integrity. This education in foundational values enables people to use all their other education for socially beneficial purposes. When we consider establishing new universities for ma- terial education a sign of national progress, then why not similarly celebrate the building of a university for spiritual education?
3. Medication: The temple acts like a hospital for the mind.
The medication it provides heals the diseased mentality that impels people to addiction and criminality, both of which cause an enormous drain on the national economy. If we recognize as a social necessity the building of hospi- tals that heal the body, then why not similarly recognize as a social necessity the erection of hospitals that heal the mind?
4. Purification: The temple purifies the hearts of those who visit it regularly. This purification inspires talented people with leadership potential to blossom into pure-hearted, selfless, principle-centered leaders. When leaders with character are acutely needed in every organization from the family to the government, then why not welcome an institute that can produce high-quality leaders?
5. Love: The temple offers us a glimpse of the kingdom of
God, where we are all together as family members in God’s family. In a vibrant temple, people learn to form relation- ships at the spiritual level. This leads to the experience a profound God-centered love that provides them deep sat- isfaction and dramatically improves their relationships. When relationship conflicts are causing unprecedented misery in society, then why not support an institution that can provide a solid foundation for lasting relationships?
6. Engagement: The temple provides people various satisfy- ing engagements that preserve our national culture, and also productively channelize their talents and energies. When our national culture is being lost at an alarming rate, then why not help a forum that is not only protecting but also reviving it?
And if one institution can offer all these six benefits simultaneously, why should we oppose? The bigness of the temple is not a gaudy luxury, but a functional necessity; it has big roles to play, big services to offer. To serve as an effective university for spiritual education, it needs seminar halls, conference rooms and libraries. To serve as a vibrant cultural center that can properly serve the thousands of people who crowd it on festivals, it needs a large temple hall, a large prasad hall and a large discourse hall. Thus the temple provides essential even indispensable services to the society and so dynamic temples are one of the greatest needs of our times.
(Extracted from the the author’s book Why do we need a temple?)
And the gifts need to be offered according to the stature of the person. We spend millions of rupees to arrange for the reception of the President of America when he comes to India. Then if the President of all Presidents, the Supreme Person God himself descends, shouldn’t we offer him a reception befitting his stature?
And the temple is not just a place for religious worship; it offers many valuable services to society. These services can be summarized in the acronym TEMPLE (Tranquility Education Medication Purification Love Engagement):
1. Tranquility: The temple atmosphere with its soothing vi- brations of holy chants and the sanctifying presence of the Deity serves as a tranquil retreat center. It offers essential refreshing breaks that empower people to face the stress- es of life. To get similar breaks, many people seek enter- tainment, which is an industry costing millions. When we don’t object to the money spent on arranging for that sort of breaks, then why object to money being spent on ar- ranging for spiritual breaks that offer similar and arguably better refreshment for many religious people?
2. Education: The temple serves as a center for higher spiri- tual education wherein people learn principles and prac- tices for leading a life of moral and spiritual integrity. This education in foundational values enables people to use all their other education for socially beneficial purposes. When we consider establishing new universities for ma- terial education a sign of national progress, then why not similarly celebrate the building of a university for spiritual education?
3. Medication: The temple acts like a hospital for the mind.
The medication it provides heals the diseased mentality that impels people to addiction and criminality, both of which cause an enormous drain on the national economy. If we recognize as a social necessity the building of hospi- tals that heal the body, then why not similarly recognize as a social necessity the erection of hospitals that heal the mind?
4. Purification: The temple purifies the hearts of those who visit it regularly. This purification inspires talented people with leadership potential to blossom into pure-hearted, selfless, principle-centered leaders. When leaders with character are acutely needed in every organization from the family to the government, then why not welcome an institute that can produce high-quality leaders?
5. Love: The temple offers us a glimpse of the kingdom of
God, where we are all together as family members in God’s family. In a vibrant temple, people learn to form relation- ships at the spiritual level. This leads to the experience a profound God-centered love that provides them deep sat- isfaction and dramatically improves their relationships. When relationship conflicts are causing unprecedented misery in society, then why not support an institution that can provide a solid foundation for lasting relationships?
6. Engagement: The temple provides people various satisfy- ing engagements that preserve our national culture, and also productively channelize their talents and energies. When our national culture is being lost at an alarming rate, then why not help a forum that is not only protecting but also reviving it?
And if one institution can offer all these six benefits simultaneously, why should we oppose? The bigness of the temple is not a gaudy luxury, but a functional necessity; it has big roles to play, big services to offer. To serve as an effective university for spiritual education, it needs seminar halls, conference rooms and libraries. To serve as a vibrant cultural center that can properly serve the thousands of people who crowd it on festivals, it needs a large temple hall, a large prasad hall and a large discourse hall. Thus the temple provides essential even indispensable services to the society and so dynamic temples are one of the greatest needs of our times.
(Extracted from the the author’s book Why do we need a temple?)
Q25. Why do bad things happen to good people?
Here’s
an analogy to understand the answer. In villages, grain is often stored
in huge vertical containers; fresh grain is poured into the top, and
old stored grain is taken out from the bottom. A farmer may have
produced poor quality grain of, say, brand Z for the past four years and
stocked it in his container. This year he produces high quality
grain of, say, brand A and stores it at the top. He is therefore
exasperated when he finds grain of brand Z coming out from the bottom.
This illustrates how seemingly innocent people suffer in this life:
they have been doing good things in this life, but have earlier done bad
things whose reactions are coming to them now.
What makes the workings of karma difficult to appreciate is that most people have a karmic record that is neither white nor black, but shades of gray. That mixed record leads to reactions that often appear arbitrary. A question that vexes many when they see bad things happening to good people is: “If these people were really so bad in their earlier lives, how could they have been virtuous in this life for so long?”
There are several possible answers. We often see even upright people occasionally succumbing to temptation and perpetrating abominable misdeeds. Of course, their virtuous nature rectifies them quickly, but still the fact remains that they did commit a greatly sinful act and are therefore liable for a reaction. So the wrongdoing, like an ugly black spot on their otherwise clean karmic slate, will result in a severe reaction in an otherwise happy future life. Shift this scenario one lifetime backwards and we have the answer to the above question. The harsh affliction coming to a good person may thus be due to an occasional but grave transgression in a previous life.
Also, our behavior in this life is not determined only by our tendencies in the previous life; upbringing and association in this life also play a significant role. So if people with bad inclinations are born into a good family because of some good karma, their congenial upbringing and surroundings may empower them to shed their baggage of negative propensities. Thus they may become moral in this life, but their misdeeds from previous lives will make them suffer despite their rectified conduct now.
Thus the principles of reincarnation allow us to view life with a much broader perspective—not from the standpoint of one brief lifetime, which is nothing more than a flash in time, but from the standpoint of eternity. With this broader vision we can understand how each of us individual souls is alone responsible for what happens in our life.
What makes the workings of karma difficult to appreciate is that most people have a karmic record that is neither white nor black, but shades of gray. That mixed record leads to reactions that often appear arbitrary. A question that vexes many when they see bad things happening to good people is: “If these people were really so bad in their earlier lives, how could they have been virtuous in this life for so long?”
There are several possible answers. We often see even upright people occasionally succumbing to temptation and perpetrating abominable misdeeds. Of course, their virtuous nature rectifies them quickly, but still the fact remains that they did commit a greatly sinful act and are therefore liable for a reaction. So the wrongdoing, like an ugly black spot on their otherwise clean karmic slate, will result in a severe reaction in an otherwise happy future life. Shift this scenario one lifetime backwards and we have the answer to the above question. The harsh affliction coming to a good person may thus be due to an occasional but grave transgression in a previous life.
Also, our behavior in this life is not determined only by our tendencies in the previous life; upbringing and association in this life also play a significant role. So if people with bad inclinations are born into a good family because of some good karma, their congenial upbringing and surroundings may empower them to shed their baggage of negative propensities. Thus they may become moral in this life, but their misdeeds from previous lives will make them suffer despite their rectified conduct now.
Thus the principles of reincarnation allow us to view life with a much broader perspective—not from the standpoint of one brief lifetime, which is nothing more than a flash in time, but from the standpoint of eternity. With this broader vision we can understand how each of us individual souls is alone responsible for what happens in our life.
Q24. What is the cause of earthquakes?
Unfortunate
events like earthquakes are karmic reactions to our own past misdeeds;
God merely sanctions the law of karma to deliver the appropriate
reactions for our actions. He has nothing against anyone, as the
Bhagavad-gita (9.29) states. He is neutral, as was mentioned in the
previously quoted Gita verse (9.9) and allows nature to take its own course, just as an impartial judge allows the law to take its own course.
When a person touches a live wire and gets a shock, we can’t hold the electricity board responsible, even though it supplied the electricity that led to the shock. That person was responsible for touching the live wire.
Similarly, when we do misdeeds and get reactions, we can’t hold the universal government responsible, though it supplied the energy that led to the earthquake. We are responsible for engaging in misdeeds.
The principle underlying the shock and the quake is the same: we sow, we reap. The difference is in the time lag between the sowing and the reaping: instantaneous in the shock, delayed in the quake. That difference is because different actions bring reactions after different time durations, just as different seeds fructify after different time durations. For example, grains harvest after two or three months, some fruit seeds produce fruits after twenty years and some seeds after hundred years.
Similarly, we can observe that actions produce reactions after different time durations. A person who eats several ice creams at night may wake with a running nose – the reaction comes after several hours. A child who eats too many chocolates may find her teeth spoilt by teenage – the reaction comes after several years. A person who starts smoking in teenage may get lung cancer by late middle-age – the reaction comes after several decades.
Just as the action-reaction time lag may range from near-zero to several decades, it can extend to before this life and even beyond this life, because it is the same person – the same soul – continuing from one life to the next.
Why may a reaction be so delayed as to come in the next life? Because some reactions may require certain circumstances for fructification. To understand this, here’s an incident associated with the Mahabharata.
After the bloody Kurukshetra war, Dhritarashtra asked Krishna, “I had hundred sons and all of them were killed in the war. Why? Krishna replied, “Fifty lifetimes ago, you were a hunter. While hunting, you tried to shoot a male bird, but it flew away. In anger, you ruthlessly slaughtered the hundred baby birds that were there in the nest. The father-bird had to watch in helpless agony. Because you caused that father-bird the pain of seeing the death of his hundreds sons, you too had to bear the pain of your hundred sons dying. Dhritarashtra thought about it and then asked, “But why did I have to wait for fifty lifetimes?” Krishna answered, “You were accumulating punya (pious credits) during the last fifty lifetimes to get a hundred sons because that requires a lot of punya. Then you got the reaction for the papa (sin) that you have done fifty lifetimes ago.”
The Bhagavad-gita (4.17) informs us gahana karmano gatih, that the way in which action and reaction works is very complex. Taxing our brain to find the specific karmic seed that caused the present reversal is futile. The Bhagavad-gita (4.17) emphasizes that the intricate workings of karma are too complex for the human mind to comprehend. This incomprehensibility can arise from several reasons like several karmic seeds fructifying together as one event or one karmic seed fructifying as a series of events
Therefore, some reaction may come in this lifetime, some in the next and some in a distant future lifetime.
When a person touches a live wire and gets a shock, we can’t hold the electricity board responsible, even though it supplied the electricity that led to the shock. That person was responsible for touching the live wire.
Similarly, when we do misdeeds and get reactions, we can’t hold the universal government responsible, though it supplied the energy that led to the earthquake. We are responsible for engaging in misdeeds.
The principle underlying the shock and the quake is the same: we sow, we reap. The difference is in the time lag between the sowing and the reaping: instantaneous in the shock, delayed in the quake. That difference is because different actions bring reactions after different time durations, just as different seeds fructify after different time durations. For example, grains harvest after two or three months, some fruit seeds produce fruits after twenty years and some seeds after hundred years.
Similarly, we can observe that actions produce reactions after different time durations. A person who eats several ice creams at night may wake with a running nose – the reaction comes after several hours. A child who eats too many chocolates may find her teeth spoilt by teenage – the reaction comes after several years. A person who starts smoking in teenage may get lung cancer by late middle-age – the reaction comes after several decades.
Just as the action-reaction time lag may range from near-zero to several decades, it can extend to before this life and even beyond this life, because it is the same person – the same soul – continuing from one life to the next.
Why may a reaction be so delayed as to come in the next life? Because some reactions may require certain circumstances for fructification. To understand this, here’s an incident associated with the Mahabharata.
After the bloody Kurukshetra war, Dhritarashtra asked Krishna, “I had hundred sons and all of them were killed in the war. Why? Krishna replied, “Fifty lifetimes ago, you were a hunter. While hunting, you tried to shoot a male bird, but it flew away. In anger, you ruthlessly slaughtered the hundred baby birds that were there in the nest. The father-bird had to watch in helpless agony. Because you caused that father-bird the pain of seeing the death of his hundreds sons, you too had to bear the pain of your hundred sons dying. Dhritarashtra thought about it and then asked, “But why did I have to wait for fifty lifetimes?” Krishna answered, “You were accumulating punya (pious credits) during the last fifty lifetimes to get a hundred sons because that requires a lot of punya. Then you got the reaction for the papa (sin) that you have done fifty lifetimes ago.”
The Bhagavad-gita (4.17) informs us gahana karmano gatih, that the way in which action and reaction works is very complex. Taxing our brain to find the specific karmic seed that caused the present reversal is futile. The Bhagavad-gita (4.17) emphasizes that the intricate workings of karma are too complex for the human mind to comprehend. This incomprehensibility can arise from several reasons like several karmic seeds fructifying together as one event or one karmic seed fructifying as a series of events
Therefore, some reaction may come in this lifetime, some in the next and some in a distant future lifetime.
Q23. Doesn’t the Bhagavad-gita ( 9.8 ) state that God is the destroyer? So isn’t he the cause of earthquakes too?
Let’s look at the verse carefully:
prakritim svam avashtabhya visrijami punah punah bhuta-gramam imam kritsnam avasham prakriter vashat
“The whole cosmic order is under me. Under my will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under my will it is annihilated at the end.”
This verse doesn’t talk only about destruction; it also talks about creation. So to selectively take just one part of the verse is to misrepresent its meaning.
Even if we put the creation part aside and focus only on the destruction part, still the verse doesn’t say ‘God is the destroyer’; it says ‘Destruction happens under his will.’ That the difference between the two is significant becomes evident in the next verse (9.9): “All this work cannot bind me. I am ever detached from all these material activities, seated as though neutral.” In this verse, God clearly states that he is neutral.
Neglecting an important part of the same verse and also neglecting an adjoining verse that conveys a contrary message raises serious questions about the way scripture is being quoted. Either the person quoting the verse is highly biased and doesn’t want to look
at any verses that don’t support his preconceived ideas. Or he is myopic and doesn’t understand the Gita’s explanation of God’s role in the world. Either way, this verse certainly doesn’t support the claim that God is the destroyer. So God can’t be held responsible for the earthquakes.
prakritim svam avashtabhya visrijami punah punah bhuta-gramam imam kritsnam avasham prakriter vashat
“The whole cosmic order is under me. Under my will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under my will it is annihilated at the end.”
This verse doesn’t talk only about destruction; it also talks about creation. So to selectively take just one part of the verse is to misrepresent its meaning.
Even if we put the creation part aside and focus only on the destruction part, still the verse doesn’t say ‘God is the destroyer’; it says ‘Destruction happens under his will.’ That the difference between the two is significant becomes evident in the next verse (9.9): “All this work cannot bind me. I am ever detached from all these material activities, seated as though neutral.” In this verse, God clearly states that he is neutral.
Neglecting an important part of the same verse and also neglecting an adjoining verse that conveys a contrary message raises serious questions about the way scripture is being quoted. Either the person quoting the verse is highly biased and doesn’t want to look
at any verses that don’t support his preconceived ideas. Or he is myopic and doesn’t understand the Gita’s explanation of God’s role in the world. Either way, this verse certainly doesn’t support the claim that God is the destroyer. So God can’t be held responsible for the earthquakes.
Q22. Are earthquakes acts of God?
Aap
sawal hi aisa puchte ho ki jawab deneke pehle hi bhagavan
doshi saabit ho jaye(My dear Sir, you ask such questions that even
before replying God is held guilty)
This question is framed in such a way as to set a trap, not to seek an answer. It is like asking a person: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” If he says no, he’s trapped: “What a shameless guy! You are still beating your wife.” If he says yes, he’s still trapped: “See! You have yourself admitted that you used to beat your wife earlier – and have only now stopped beating her.”
The only way to respond to such trap-setting questions is to challenge their underlying presumption: “What is the basis of this wife-beating allegation?” Or in our case: “What is the basis of this allegation that earthquakes are acts of God?”
Is it that all acts beyond human control are acts of God? If so, then why only the bad acts? Why not the good acts? Both the earth’s quaking and the earth’s not quaking are beyond human control. So, if one thing beyond human control is ascribed to God, then the other thing should also be ascribed to him. If God is to be penalized whenever and wherever the earth quakes, then he should also be paid whenever and wherever the earth doesn’t quake. If he has to pay for the one time when Kanjibhai’s shop was damaged, he has to be paid for all the times when Kanjibhai’s shop was not damaged. If he has to pay for the damages caused to Kanjibhai’s shop, then he has to be paid for the fact that no damages were caused to Kanjibhai’s house.
Just because one happens normally (the earth’s not quaking) and one happens occasionally (the earth’s quaking) doesn’t make any difference; neither is in our control. And if the assumption is that God controls what is not in human control, then he controls both the good and the bad. We can’t blame him for the bad and not give him credit for the good.
This question is framed in such a way as to set a trap, not to seek an answer. It is like asking a person: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” If he says no, he’s trapped: “What a shameless guy! You are still beating your wife.” If he says yes, he’s still trapped: “See! You have yourself admitted that you used to beat your wife earlier – and have only now stopped beating her.”
The only way to respond to such trap-setting questions is to challenge their underlying presumption: “What is the basis of this wife-beating allegation?” Or in our case: “What is the basis of this allegation that earthquakes are acts of God?”
Is it that all acts beyond human control are acts of God? If so, then why only the bad acts? Why not the good acts? Both the earth’s quaking and the earth’s not quaking are beyond human control. So, if one thing beyond human control is ascribed to God, then the other thing should also be ascribed to him. If God is to be penalized whenever and wherever the earth quakes, then he should also be paid whenever and wherever the earth doesn’t quake. If he has to pay for the one time when Kanjibhai’s shop was damaged, he has to be paid for all the times when Kanjibhai’s shop was not damaged. If he has to pay for the damages caused to Kanjibhai’s shop, then he has to be paid for the fact that no damages were caused to Kanjibhai’s house.
Just because one happens normally (the earth’s not quaking) and one happens occasionally (the earth’s quaking) doesn’t make any difference; neither is in our control. And if the assumption is that God controls what is not in human control, then he controls both the good and the bad. We can’t blame him for the bad and not give him credit for the good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)