An extract of the oral presentation at the International Conference for Religious Studies 2013, held at Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Namaste! I bow not just to you, but to the YOU in you. Interestingly, the You in you is the same as the I in me. Namaste literarily means ‘I prostrate to him’. So, while I prostrate to him, I in fact prostrate to the universal being that forms a connection between you and I. We look for some common element in objects of dissimilarity. With many-many numbers, we try to find a common factor between them. Similarly, with many-many human beings, and many-more living beings, and very-many beings, our endeavour is to find a common factor between them all. It will not be wrong to say that the God is this very common factor between all such beings. Still, we strive to have our own God.

But for Hinduism, perhaps there is no religion that gives us the liberty of choosing our own God. And Hinduism is not a religion. In fact, the nomenclature Hindu does not refer to any belief. Instead it refers to a location. Hindu is a distortion of Sindhu or the Indus River along which these people lived. Consequently, their way of life was termed Hinduism.

Remarkably, the way of life of these people was influenced by a collection of Samhitas or verses called the Vedas. These were not written scriptures, but verbal communiqués that transcended generations. There were four of these – the Rig Veda, the Yajura Veda, the Sama Veda and the Atharva Veda. Subsequently these Vedas were further elaborated and the appended portion was called the Vedanta. While Vedas related to the nature of the outer world, Vedanta related to the nature of inner world. Together these formed the most comprehensive knowledge base.

Vedanta continues to be relevant as the truth of the inner world has not changed. Even the advancements of science and technology have failed to contradict the facts put forward by our Great Seers. The beauty of the Vedanta is in its universal appeal. It not only serves Hinduism, but also other religions like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, whereas it itself retains its secular identity. The scripture in its very nature is purely humanitarian. In fact, it refrains even from giving the God any name. If ever the Vedanta has to refer to the God, it refers to it as Tat (That). By not associating it with any form and name, Vedanta has made ‘That’ independent of gender or religion. In the beginning I said, “I prostrate to him”. Well this is my own gender bias, whereas Vedanta has no such gender bias, nor any religious inclination.

The Vedanta identifies the God not by noun, but by adjectives. If ever ‘That’ must be called by a name, it has been called so as the ‘Ishwara’, the one who rules over; the one who commands. The Ishwara thus conceived by the Vedanta is well defined and yet totally unidentified, thereby making it convenient for all to conceive ‘That’ in one’s own unique way. Vedanta presents us with a perfect picture frame and leaves it onto us to slip in the desired photograph. So it is for us to put in the picture of our choice, be it that of Vishnu or Shiva, Buddha or Jesus. We may even leave the frame blank if we like.

Our pursuit of knowledge sets us on the path of exploration of ‘You and I’. The first question that often occupies our mind is ‘Who am I?’ followed by another question ‘How am I related to you? Remarkably, our exploration of ‘I’ in relation to ‘You’ leads us towards ‘That’!

The science rules that there must be a cause behind an effect. The Universe came into effect because of a big bang; human beings came into effect because of the evolution of life. Aristotle argued that everything that happens is caused by something else. So if you get wet because of a rain pour, what caused the rain? Obviously a combination of excessive moisture in the air and cold temperatures — but what caused the humidity? What caused the temperature drop? The questions can go on and on — everything that causes something is in turn caused by something else. We can trace this chain of causes back as far as we want, but Aristotle thought that eventually we reach a first cause that just was — causing but itself uncaused. He called it the ‘Prime Mover’. It is amazing to think that almost five centuries before Aristotle the learned seers of Vedanta had arrived at the same conclusion.

What has been termed as the ‘Prime Mover’ by Aristotle was referred to as ‘the Cause of all causes’ in the Vedanta. According to Vedanta, That is the Eye of our eyes; the Ear of our ears; and the Mind of our mind. For want of an identity, they called ‘That’ the Ishwara, the Supreme Administrator.

Fact of the matter is that the Ishwara till date remains unseen. The reference to God as ‘That’ has special significance. Grammatically, we refer to something which is away from us as ‘that’, whereas something that is near to us is referred to as ‘this’. Similarly, in Vedanta, Tat or That signifies something which is beyond our perception, and Etat or This signifies something which is perceivable.

We perceive anything through our five senses. Now we can neither see That, nor hear or touch That. That also remains beyond our taste and smell. We can see a cow and can also hear and touch it. With our limited power to smell, we can hardly smell it, but a dog can still smell it with distinction. We can smell a flower and also see and touch it, but we cannot hear it and thus believe that it does not have speech. Men can think, whereas others cannot. Even all men cannot see, hear, smell, feel or think alike. Thus in a way our perception is restrained by our senses. Wouldn’t we be a different person if we could have the power to see as that of a hawk, the power to smell as that of a bear, the power to hear as that of a cat, the power to feel through touch as that of a snake, the power to taste as that of a catfish, and the power of mind or the brain as developed as that of Einstein.

It all sounds utopian, but it allows us to think that our perception would certainly be improved if we had such enhanced capabilities. Could we then perceive That? It is indeed difficult to say. This is because even with its most developed vision a hawk would have its limitation; even with its most developed hearing power a cat would have its constraint; even with its most developed smelling power a bear would have its inadequacy; even with its most developed touch organs a snake would have its shortcoming; even with its most developed taste buds a catfish would have its drawback; and even with a brain as developed as that of Einstein we would be bound.

Science does not believe in the existence of anything that cannot be perceived. So it is an end of the matter with respect to God for science. The journey of philosophy begins from where the journey of science terminates. It still tries to perceive which remains imperceptible. Taking the standpoint of science further that every effect has a cause behind it, philosophy tries to explore that Prime Cause, which may not have a cause for its own existence, in other words, which is self-existing. It still may be an imagination, but what it takes to imagine! Perhaps if our senses were not limited, we could have perceived ‘That’. The Vedanta claims that we can indeed develop our senses so as to perceive ‘That’.

For us it took millions of years to evolve from lowest species to human beings. Aided by the Mother Nature our journey has been from imperfection towards perfection. We may still be far from perfect, but the journey continues. Even if we were to leave this process of evolution in the hands of Mother Nature, we shall definitely be an improved being in course of time. But then it would again take millions of years for us to evolve into a perfect being. Thankfully, we can now be the agents of evolution for our own self. Aided by the biological process of the nature we would take millions of years to evolve into a perfect being, but aided by our own psycho-social potentials we may take far less time to achieve this. Thus, it would not be totally incorrect to imagine that we can indeed develop our senses to perceive ‘That’.

Obviously, ‘That’ thus perceived remains unique to the seer. The seer here does not refer to the soothsayer, but to the one who has seen or witnessed the ultimate truth. Even if they were to share their experience, it would be difficult for others to understand it. Thus, taking cue from such seers, we have to realize the ultimate truth all by ourselves. It needs a different set of sense organs to realize what remains imperceptible through our normal senses. Ishwara or God or Allah cannot be perceived, but can be realized. Thus, what remains imperceptible by scientific values becomes known by faith and belief. This realization is indeed a solitary experience rather than a collective experiment.

Scientifically speaking the only thing that we can think of as all-pervasive is the Space. It is formless, indivisible, inseparable, unmade and indestructible. Even science cannot ignore this fact that whatever exists, exists in space. Nothing exists beyond the Space – no living or non-living being, no star, no galaxy! Space extends further beyond the farthest. It is all-pervasive and omnipresent. It is perhaps the only element that is neither created nor destroyed. Scientists could make gases in their laboratories, they could manufacture artificial limbs, they could even clone living beings, they could indeed divide molecules into atoms; they could split atoms into electrons, protons and neutrons; they could trace Higgs Boson, but none of them could ever produce the Space, least of all destroy it.

In fact nothing is created or destroyed in nature, it merely changes form. To quote Einstein, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.” What is correct for physical energy, can it be incorrect for cosmic energy? Wasn’t the Great Scientist merely reiterating the eternal truth stated by the greatest of all Philosophers Sri Krishna, “Certainly never at any time I did not exist, nor did you or all these kings; and certainly we shall all never cease to exist in the future”? We can think of Sri Krishna, together with others, as the Energy personified. Elaborating it further, Sri Krishna states, “As a person discards an old worn out clothe to put on a new one, similarly the embodied gives up its old and worn out exterior to acquire a new one”. The embodied is nothing else but the Cosmic Energy encaged within the body of flesh and blood.

With this we are introduced to yet another aspect, that of Energy. But is Energy apart from Space? In fact the two aspects, space and energy, together with the third aspect, that of Time, are inter-twined together, so much so that none can exist without the other two. Interestingly these three aspects have been described as Paramatman, Parashakti and Parabramhan in the Vedas. In other words, Brahman is as omnipresent as the Space; as Omnipotent as the Energy; and as eternal as the Time. Brahma is not beyond space and time as stated by modern Indian Philosophers.

According to Swami Vivekananda, “There is really no difference between matter, mind and spirit. They are only different phases of experiencing the One, The very world is seen by the five senses as matter, by the very wicked as hell, by the good as haven, and by the perfect as God”.

As matter is the continuum of space, so is the Atman or self a continuum of Paramatman or the Supreme Self. What Space is to science, or Infinity to Mathematics, Bramhan is to Vedanta. Absoluteness is its very virtue. It is the same as the Shoonya of the Buddhists or Ether of Aristotle. According to Vedanta, the Bramhan becomes perceptible because of Maya or Illusion and is thence called the Jeeva or Jagat. As we do not perceive the Space, but the wall; similarly we do not perceive the Bramhan, but the Jeeva. This makes the Jeeva appear real. To quote Albert Einstein, “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” As the matter is part of the Space, so is the Jeeva part of the Bramhan – the Part that the Bramhan chooses to illumine or manifest.

According to Vedanta, we all are indeed God, “Aham Brahman Asmi”(I am Brahman). What then made us have God/s in the temples? People have a deep urge to seek divine interventions at the time of crisis. We want to pay homage to someone, whom we can call at such time. We need a deity whom we can worship. The world around us is full of imperfections, so we look around for perfection. Seeing none, we attribute all virtues in our personal God and see no vices in it.

We identify forms and refer to it by names. We give names to all that we know and recognize. We also give names to all that we can know and can recognize. We name people, we name objects, and we even name animals that we keep as pets. Thus, there is nothing unusual if we want to name the object of our veneration, the hallmark of perfection. It is not just figurative that we name, we also name the abstract. Have we not given names to our emotions? ’Love’, ‘hate’, ‘anger’, ‘joy’ etc. are various names for our emotions. With the same spirit, we have given names to our faith. Bramha, Vishnu, Mahesh or Rama, Krishna, Hanuman.

Rama or Krishna, Buddha or Jesus are all forms in Space. Each of them has a unique form that distinguishes one with the other. We know it is Rama, or Krishna, or Sita, or Shankar, or Hanuman, or Jesus, or Buddha by its unique form. Similarly, we know it is a temple, or a mosque, or a church when we see one.

These are all various endeavors to define Space as per our convenience. We build a house at a place which is part of the Space. We ‘divide’ the house into rooms, whereas fact of the matter is that we simply redefine the Space, which was already there and which still continues to be there. We now call the pre-existing Space as our bedroom, living room, bathroom or kitchen. The bedroom appears so because of the beds kept there; if we were to keep the sofas there, the same space would now be called living room. The house occupies the pre-existing Space without adding or subtracting anything to or from it. If we were to deconstruct the house, the Space would still be there. The divisions and partitions are ‘virtual’, whereas in reality the Space remains unaffected. Not just the rooms, but the walls that appear to be dividing the house into rooms are continuum of the Space. Any matter, living or non-living is continuum of the Space. All such matters occupy Space and when removed bring back Space into sight. Anything that is perceptible is part of the Space, whereas the Space itself remains imperceptible. The fact stated by the scientists is similar to the truth experienced by our Rishis. Our senses are attuned to perceive objects in space; if we could perceive space in objects, things would be different.

The mosque is known so because of its form, and so is the church or the pagoda. It is basically the Space that is called a temple because of its form. If that very structure is demolished and another structure akin to the mosque is constructed over it, the same Space ceases to be a temple and becomes a mosque. We relate our religious faith with some or the other form. While some of us need a form to meditate on, others need a form to meditate in. If there is nothing wrong with the latter, there should be nothing wrong with the former. No religion exists without associating itself with form because that is what gives it a unique identity.

Unfortunately the desire to be unique creates differences among the equals. This is very much reflected in today’s world. The inequality we see around us is all because of our desire to be unique. We feel superior or inferior because of this discrimination. All tensions in the world are because of this very differentiation. Remarkably, Vedanta advocates oneness while believing in the unity of all. From the standpoint of Vedanta, there is but one life, one world, and one existence. Every one of us is That – You are That “Tat Twam Asi” and so am I “Aham Bramhan Asmi”.

Still, we need a God as an object of our adoration. While trying to explain the concept of Maya, Sri Adi Shankar has given a beautiful example. A man sees some rope in the dark and mistakes it for snake. Obviously, he would be frightened. But as soon as he realizes that it is merely a rope, his fear wanes. Now if there was indeed a snake and we mistook it for a rope, how will we behave? Certainly we will have no fear whatsoever. In case the snake happens to be poisonous, we may die of the snakebite, but we would never die of fear. Don’t people die of fear than the poison? God is the most marvelous of all illusions that we have ever created. It gives us assurance from which we get courage and confidence. It gives us the guarantee that nothing will go wrong while ‘That’ is with us.

As we superimpose a snake on a rope, similarly we superimpose a personal God on the impersonal God. We superimpose Bramhan, the impersonal God on the Space that is all-pervasive and eternal. We then superimpose Ishwara, the personal God on the Bramhan. This gives us the liberty to form and name our own God. Various religions and sects have taken this liberty, so why cannot individuals take it? Some see Ishwara or God as He, some as She, some conceive That with form, some without form. To quote Rig Veda, Truth is one, but wise call it by many names.

Although there may be many longitudinal lines passing through a country, yet there is only one accepted time-zone for a nation. So, if the entire globe is conceived as a nation, will not there be a single time-zone? All the differences in the society are virtual, be it caste, creed, religion or nation. The Vedanta looks at the whole World as a single home – Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam, thus limiting differences.

Belief in the God is not ignorance, but is very humane. The fear is still there. It is the fear of the Law. All religious faiths of the world have put forward certain Commandments that we must follow so that the God remains with us, because we cannot afford to have the God on the other side. Interestingly, while other scriptures tell us of the hell and heaven, the Vedanta does not do so. In fact it does not cast fear, but asks us to be fearless. It only calls for the highest ethical practice and expansion of the Self to accommodate all. The beauty of the Vedanta is that it does not command, but suggests, and leaves us to take those suggestions as per our own understanding of the text. Thus, permitting us to have our own God.