Metaphysics, related branches, and spiritual physics

Prompted by a conversation I had not so long ago, I will postpone my entry-in-progress in favor of this one. I'll finish and post that one later.

Also, if I haven't mentioned this before, I will be attempting to stick to the ITRANS transliteration of Sanskrit. However, I will be changing a few rules to suit me (ITRANS: saMskR^ita, my rendition: saMskRta), and as such, to prevent confusion, I will utilize Google/Blogger's unicode devanaagarii/Hindi rendering.

Metaphysics is a branch of Western philosophy which originally sought to answer questions relating to the nature of reality. After science developed and branched off, "metaphysics" continued to attempt to answer questions relating to reality that were not answerable by science, probably due to the fact that science was empirical in its process.

The interesting thing about metaphysics is that in conjunction with religion, it essentially becomes mysticism. Metaphysics, at least in the Western Classical sense, is about coming to terms with the nature of reality and life as a whole, and so requires "following" it, or applying knowledge gained in the study of metaphysics to one's actual life. In order to fully appreciate metaphysics, the argument can be made that you must practice, not just study.

However, this is not always the case. I'll illustrate an example from Western tradition, before I go into the relevance in Hinduism. While people may fully follow the Hermetica and its associated practices (what exactly they are I don't very well know), it was not uncommon for people to study it without the intention of applying it. Passing interest in it is one matter, but it is quite another for someone to study it with the intention of better understanding the imagery and inspiration in the Tarot.

(On a different note, Tarot actually isn't Egyptian, as is commonly claimed. Most of the imagery, aside from Christian references, comes from the Hermetica, which is considered akin to the Egyptian book of Thoth. The Moors translated the old texts and re-introduced them to Europeans via Spain. Cards came from China, and the Tarot imagery and reading techniques itself developed in Italy.
The Tarot: History, Symbolism, and Divination - Robert M. Place)

To take a different example, let's take a look at the Hindu philosophical schools. One of the three pairs of sister-schools is "saaMkhya-yoga" (Devanaagarii: सांख्य-योग). SaaMkhya is usually translated as "enumeration." It describes a dualist view on reality, consisting of puruSha (Deva: पुरुष) and prakRti (Deva: प्रकृति), with puruSha being "consciousness" and prakRti being "matter/nature." From there, it goes on to describe how puruSha interacts with prakRti, i.e. how consciousness interacts with and is entangled in matter, via the senses and mind.

I am making it a point to note that in saaMkhya-yoga, the "consciousness" present in all of us is often referred to as a "soul." However, this is not a "soul" by Western standards. What is considered the "soul" by Western standards differs from the "draSTuH" (Deva: द्रष्टुः, "seer/one who is seeing") referred to in the yoga sutra's. In the West, ideas like the "mind," "intellect/reason," and "thought" are elements of the soul. In Hindu thought, the mind is material in nature, as are thoughts and intellect. Only pure, unadulterated consciousness is considered the "soul."

Yoga, however, is the application of that knowledge in order to free one's self from the bondage of matter. Yoga, whose English cognate is found in the word "yoke," expounds on how one can go about separating the inner consciousness from the outside world. As the consciousness cannot be turned off, when it no longer gets input from the senses it turns instead to itself. This "self-awareness" process is what yoga is about. By today's lingo, we'd call this "raaja yoga" (Deva: राज योग) and its process that of "meditation"; the popular use of the word "yoga" revolves around haTha yoga (Deva: हठ योग) which focuses on different postures (aasana's, Deva: आसन's) to make the body full of vigor.

Another example, for those of you who know or would like to research stuff on your own, is that of the nyaaya and vaisheSika (nyaaya, Deva: न्याय ; vaisheSika, Deva: वैशेषिक), the sister schools of logic and proper metaphysics, respectively.

There's a good deal of practicality in studying something without the intention of applying it. It allows you to access related studies and become deeply involved with them and remain focused with them. Studying chemistry allows you to deal with particle physics and biology, without having to become a chemical engineer. You would hardly expect to see yogi's at proper debates between the different schools of Hindu philosophy. The yogi's would pretty much sit and say, "Why bother arguing each other? Why not see for yourselves?" Advocates of saaMkhya would take over for them and debate. And before you say that they were right, think about this: had they not participated in those debates, there would be very sources alive today from which we could understand their school in any tangible way. Participation in debates is what legitimized them, financially and academically. It's well and good to stick to you guns, but if everyone is just sitting and meditating, who's going to provide a means for them to continue doing that? And while we can learn about meditation from Buddhism and Tantra, Yoga is an entirely different beast, especially when you get down to the nitty-gritty details of life, souls, methods, etc.


In addition, for those that merely dabble in studying metaphysics and/or mysticism, without actually practicing it, there's also a purpose. They bring the ideas of the few to the mainstream, regardless of how muddled and riddled-with-defects they may become.

The Beats' understanding of Eastern spirituality was much more accurate than the Hippies' (which isn't saying much, but it's really the fault of the Easterners). However, it was the latter who made much of the overall message available to the general population. And, once you have the idea and a few terms in people's vocabularies, you don't have to do much for people to genuinely become interested and take hold of practice.

Another example was Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Even before it was "properly" confirmed by an eclipse in Australia in 1922, Eddington's calculations from a solar eclipse from Africa brought initial news of the theory's success (despite Campbell's news of failure). British papers - and, indeed, newspapers across the world - ran headlines about how his theory proved what they thought previously of gravity as wrong. Einstein, and his theory, were household names across the globe, despite the fact that most people didn't know what in the universe it was actually saying.

And so, on many levels, it's important to understand that the study of metaphysics without any touch of practice, while seemingly contradictory, provides many uses.

And, the next time I'm cursing some fallacious, self-proclaimed know-it-all, I'll do my best to remember that even incorrect knowledge finds ways to teach people the truth.

Deities and devotion, then and now.

When most people think of Hinduism, what comes to mind is the myriad of Gods and Goddesses (I'll explain why I capitalized them later) that are mentioned and known.

Gods and Goddesses were in prominence primarily in the period of Vedic religion. The idea here was of sacrificing to the deities in order to gain worldly boons and merit for the period of time in-between lives. If you look at Mesopotamian religions, early Judaism and the Greco-Roman religions, you'll see that the sacrifice to God(s) plays a large role in worship. In addition, you also see other practices that are shared, such as purification/cleansing rituals, magic, and divination.

As time goes on, you see that many of these practices fall out of use for one reason or another, and this is especially true of polytheism as a whole, and more specifically animal sacrifice. In India, you have a rise in Puranic religious traditions which manifested as a rise in a trinity. This, depending on your sect, held either Brahma or Shakti/Devi as Creator. Vishnu was primarily seen as the preserver and Shiva as the destroyer. Various sects arose and one of these four deities was chosen as their center of focus, the most important out of the trinity.

In practice, most Hindus today have practices that are based on the sects that arose from Puranic tradition, and only truly worship one deity. All others are seen as "lesser" manifestations of that one Supreme God(dess). As such, you have the ideas that all Gods and Goddesses are legitimate in their own right even though they may not be considered to be the "highest" form of divinity. (Hence my capitalization of "Gods.")

However, there is also another major ideology of the idea of "God." This concretely begins in the Upanishads (उपनिषद्-s). The traditional "books" of Hinduism are the Vedas, and these have been passed down orally for a VERY long time. The samhita-s (संहिता-s) are the original hymns to the deities, and are considered the first of four parts. The fourth section of the Vedas is the Upanishad texts. These are more conceptual in nature.

There are a few general themes that appear, and major concepts develop: the older idea of time as cyclical is reinforced; the other planes of existences (Heavens, etc) are explained; the practice of asceticism and meditation is developed in detail; and, a monist view of the Supreme Godhead is developed. This Supreme Godhead is referred to as "brahman" (IAST: brahman, devanaagarii: ब्रह्मन्, not to be confused with IAST: brahmaa, devanaagarii: ब्रह्मा, the Creator God). This Godhead encompasses all of creation, but is beyond just creation. Some people have told me that they believe in "the powers of the Universe." I think that that phrase defines brahman pretty well.

So now, you have this brahman entity that essentially at the top of the list of Divinity. This gets identified later with devotional Gods such as Vishnu and Shiva. Thus, by worshipping Vishnu, or His incarnations (Rama or Krishna, for example), one is directly worshipping this personal idea of God, as well as the underlying divinity of the Universe.


Using that kind of logic, then why can't the older Vedic Deities also be worshipped? Let's take the Adityas (आदित्य-s) as an example. The Adityas are a group of solar Deities, of which Vishnu was originally a member. Surya (सूर्य) is considered the manifestion of the Sun. He is often identified with SavitR (सवितृ), from the Gayatri Mantra (तत् सवितुर् वरेण्यम्), and with HiraNyagarbha (हिरण्यगर्भ) (via the Sun Salutation). HiraNyagarbha means "golden womb," and appears in the HiraNyagarbha Sukta as the source of the manifested/created Universe. If I choose to worship the sun, or the Adityas in general, then in turn, I am also worshipping the Universe and brahman which is underlying it.

---

Let us keep in mind that even scholar disagree on many points, including: which Adityas are referenced in the Vedas and which are identified later; and which Deities separate and which are identified by multiple names (all referring to the same singular Deity). Thus, it becomes difficult to tell which God is referenced where, and whether that God is another by a different name or a separate deity entirely. My example above is simply my interpretation based on what I've learned. Feel free to do your own research and form your own opinion, and don't be put off by the fact that it's not concrete. That only adds to the fun.

---

This allows us, as educated Hindus, to choose what manifestation of God we want to worship. Here, I am reminded of a famous metaphor. "Just as rain falls and goes to the ocean, so do all prayers to all Gods go to the Supreme." As a Hindu, this is a really important source for religious acceptance of all others.

Perhaps more importantly, we gain the concept of monism. We can interpret anything and everything as a manifestation of God and beautiful in its own way, and thus we can better exemplify the message in the following verse:

यो माम्पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वंच मयि पश्यति |
तस्याहं न प्रणश्यामि स च मे न प्रणश्यति ||
(भगवद्गीता ६ - ३०)

He who sees Me everywhere and sees Me in everything,
To him I do not perish and he does not perish to Me.
(Bhagavad Gita 6:30)

This is my own translation; most others translate न प्रणश्यति as "is not forgotten," "is not lost," or even as "dwells in." I chose to stick to a stricter translation, hence "does not perish."

To me, I see this as a practical reminder of the Golden Rule, but taken to an extreme. Instead of just doing to others as you'd have done to you, you are remembering the inherent monism present in all. We all have a spark of the divine in us, and it helps to have a reminder in some of our more difficult situations.



Just as we can choose which deity to worship, I don't see why we can't skip the idea of manifest Gods altogether. I'll eventually outline the benefits of a "personal deity" in a later post, but right now I'd like to point out that many are perfectly fine with and have no trouble paying homage and believing in an abstract, omniscient and omnipotent God. I see no harm in skipping the "middle man" so-to-speak, and going straight for the underlying source. This is not to say that polytheism or panentheism is inferior in some way. Both panentheism and monism have their pros and cons. I'm just saying that having room for monotheism and monism would allow more people to take religion into their own hands, and have it become more accessible to them.

A Modern Hindu's Perspective

My name is Yatri Trivedi, and this is my perspective as a modern Hindu.

Through this blog, I'll be discussing different aspects of Hinduism as they pertain to modern society. I'll be attempting to figure out just what I believe in, why, and how I've come to believe that.

I believe that religions need to change in order to keep up to date with modern perspectives and beliefs. Hinduism is a very old religion and has many different movements and sects, not to mention atheist schools of thought and a rich heterodoxy. My opinions on change and food for thought will be here. I hope that I can help provide some direction for other people in my position, regardless of whether or not they are Hindu, of Indian descent, or have an interest in Indic theology or philosophy.

I've studied various religious traditions for years, and I just received my B.A. in Religion from Rutgers University. In addition to lay religious practice, I will also be citing influences and ideology from traditional philosophical schools and other movements, such as Jainism and Buddhism, that are considered heterodoxy. You may also see Sanskrit terms pop up from time to time, and while my background in Sanskrit is less than fluent, I am actually studying it and I intend to use what I know.

This blog came about because my other attempt at blogging went on a hiatus. I haven't posted here since January, mainly because my mind has been on more concretely religious ideas. This blog is my attempt to catalog that aspect of me without interfering with what I have going on over there. In case you were wondering, my other blog is The Technological Monk. Feel free to check that out as well as, or instead of, this blog.

Here goes nothing.