“Ye Baatein teri Mayawi Buddhi ke pare hai!”

The debate arises from the idea of god. How did the concept of God arrive, if Human Mind cannot perceive it? Or is it the limitations of the Regular mind or “a mind entangled in Maya” that cannot capture the presence of God?

The Two Assertions:

  1. A mind entangled in Maya cannot understand god.
  2. The mind cannot understand god because IT IS Maya.

Another question to raise is regarding the highest liberation referred to as Moksha:

Does liberating oneself from the “entanglements of Maya” ensure Moksha or does attaining Moksha ensure the liberation from the cage of Maya? Maya can be termed most closely to illusion.

“Fighting illusion is in itself a major illusion. Overcoming illusion is meditating on reality.”

The Limitations of Mind:

The limitations of the mind are often cited with the example of the Electromagnetic spectrum. An extensive range of waves from gamma rays to radio waves exists all around the universe. Limitations of the human mind are emphasized by the incapacity to only sense a small range of waves called VISIBLE light. The human body is subjected to itself as Maya or a subset of the Material cause of god.

Yet, a point often overlooked is the discovery of the Electromagnetic spectrum. Human cannot sense the entire spectrum but has confirmed their presence with tools and technology. After all, technology is the creation of the human mind.

The human mind knows it, but cannot verify its existence by bare animal values. A single unit of mind cannot uncover all the mysteries of existence in his/her lifespan; yet, it can understand all the mysteries that unfolded in the past.

Paradigm and what lies beyond it?:

Human is a byproduct of habits and beliefs. Such a collection of patterns can be referred to as a paradigm. The first Paradigm of the subconscious mind is developed at an early age; mostly 6 years of age. What the infant experiences, becomes his/her perception of the world and his/her fundamental formula of reaction to events. A paradigm can be understood as a generator of thoughts. Three people witnessing the same event will entertain different thoughts since they have different paradigms. The intrusive thoughts might be the same, but DRAWING CONCLUSION is eventually the task of Paradigm.

Paradigm Shift:

Paradigm shift or redeveloping paradigm in the upcoming age is known to be effortful. Yet, a common period where more or less shift occurs is during puberty due to hormonal upsurge. As long as a human perceives anything new, new patterns will be added or replaced in the paradigm.

Therapy is an idea to assist in the changes of patterns. It came into existence because modifying one’s own paradigm can be difficult as one is referring to one’s own paradigm to do so. In the end, a paradigm will be a set of replaced or new beliefs. The idea of moving beyond the paradigm is termed “spirituality” by a few. Also known as removing your mental wall and connecting to your true self known as Jeevatma (or soul). It can be vexing. What if moving beyond the paradigm is merely a recreation of a new paradigm? What if the state of Moksha is only an illusioned paradigm?

Beyond the Paradigm:

This can be solved by proving whether a human mind can thrive without a paradigm. For example; Empathy.  The ability to imagine how another person is feeling. If we can exactly imagine how the other person is feeling it is indeed moving beyond the paradigm. Yet, it can also be true that whatever we imagine is a result of our personal paradigm. What can it be? Another idea of moving beyond is clever. To STOP DRAWING CONCLUSION OR FEEDING INSTRUCTIONS, TO MAKE SENSE out of the things. Is true empathy understanding that you can never correctly imagine how the second person is feeling? Such is the idea of Vaishnavism. The sect that constitutes most of the Indian Bhakti and faith. You can only understand that “you can never understand god”, not to mention “not understanding” is not “the incapability to attain it”.

Achintya Bheda-Abheda by Vaishnavism:

Literal Translation: Inconceivable Similarities and differences between Jeevatma (human) and Paramatma (God).

Achintya Bheda-Abheda is often belittled merely as a theory. A theory of “our relationship with God and list of similarities (Abheda) and differences (Bheda) between god and us”. Yet, Bheda-Abheda is more than that, and cannot be classified into a theory or a philosophy, or maybe even a concept. Trying to understand our relationship with god is again an attempt to describe “God”. Bheda-Abheda simply says we are different yet similar to God. Independent but not separable. In a much more complex way, Bheda-Abheda also allows the idea of the non-existence of god. The non-existence of god is not the absence of God. God is/was present, but the idea of “existent and non-existent” is limited to physicality and the assumption that god has to be a creature or an entity.

Bheda-Abheda accepts the assertions of all the theories and rejects their negations. Simply, it accepts any person’s idea of “what god is” and rejects the idea of “what god is not”. God is describable but indefinable. This phenomenon is “Achintya”, which can be closely translated to inconceivable. Impossible or difficult to imagine.

Few of the “Intense Bhakti” Sects of Vaishnavism refer to Achintya as:

Some sects ask to empathize with god in the way mentioned above. “To understand god, Love him”. The body is the material cause of Paramatma. Mind is a part of the body, hence a matter entangled in impermanence. Jeev (soul) is the permanence, and hence the presence of god in a human. They assert that “love is an emotion of soul”. Loving god is truth while loving others is attachment to materialism. It adds that loving Paramatma is ultimately loving everything and the path to ultimate liberation. Simply put, it asserts, “that you are not limited, your mind is, and your mind is not your true self”.

The limits of humanity questioned:

If God is on a unit larger than discovered existence; then we have only discovered five percent of our estimated universe. Not to mention it can be bigger than the estimation. Yet, what the future of humanity holds cannot be underestimated either. Hence, can a human mind grasp the god without sensing and scientifically approving its existence, is neither possible nor impossible at the moment, i.e inconclusive.

1 Comment