Gods and Goddesses: Faith? Belief? Knowing?
Hi Babaji, The following quotation from MasterClass X raised a few questions from me.
“Maybe this is the main point, because you have heard of all these things or some sort of references to metaphors and analogies and so forth, but what I am saying to you is that these are not just cute literary devices—that these are actual devices that people were able to make very sophisticated mathematical and astronomical systems [of?] . And so when we are into the cultures of the East, the cultures of India, we have to understand that there’s really a lot there and to be tempted or influenced in any way to make these over-generalized, reductions of culture, I mean, you take the Rishi Garg, do you think that he didn’t associate the Heavenly bodies with Gods and Goddesses and Rishis and sort of individuals (maybe the phrase was other sorts of individuals?]. Of course, he did. He saw Jupiter as a God. [hospiti? — I couldn’t hear the word or name here] For sure he did. But did he have a comic book, Disney understanding of that planet? No, he knew how far from earth Jupiter was. He calculated it. Now, to put those two things together, a sort a deification of the universe, together with such sophisticated mathematical calculations that until they couldn’t be equaled until the 1930s. Then we have a situation there. And the whole idea of the personalities of nature, gods and goddesses and so forth goes way beyond the Disney comic book version.”
Goodness, that quotation above is dense. I feel like this is rubbing against a whole slew of assumptions and prejudices that I have. The rover has landed on Mars. Men have walked on the moon. And there have been Voyager probes of Jupiter. And I don’t think the NASA folks discovered God, in a scientific way, up there. But most NASA folks wouldn’t, I suspect, see the Ganges as a Goddess, either. Since I read your autobiography, I started to look at Nature in a different way. I started to see it all as hallowed ground. I think I might have been falling into a New Age belief system of sorts. I suspended judgment, and decided to throw the red flowers in the water. And I feel like good things have happened as a result. While you encourage us to avoid being judgmental, you discourage us from just accepting things, from trying to make ourselves believe things, from developing theories and ideologies. So, I wonder, how does one have a sense of the deification of the universe, without falling into a faith or belief based system of thought. How can one know the God Jupiter, with as much surety as a scientist might know the measurement the planet’s circumference?
Jan Baggerud Larsen
1 Apr 2014
I certainly don’t “know” the answers to the question above and this may also be just another New Age belief but anyway my current belief is that you would need direct experience to “know” or “understand”. Having the access code to the door that takes you to the Extraordinary World. But how to get the access code… I believe that what we are doing in this class could perhaps provide parts of the access code…
My current belief is quite simple in a way. I believe that everything that is/was and will ever be is already “here” and that it is accessible. If this is true then the only mystery of of the advanced ancient knowledge is how they got the key.
I guess in a way I believe that anything is possible. I realize that this makes me a bit (or very) gullible but at least I believe that I am slightly aware of it…
I am happy that the MasterClasses seems to make me more and more aware of my assumptions and prejudices.
One thing I realized even more today was that even though I want to believe that everyone and everything has equal value I am certainly not currently in a state where I am experiencing this. For instance I noticed today that immediately after realizing that Kailash made this amazing CD and book I seemed to automatically assign a higher “value” to him as a person than before I knew this. It was very hard for me to differenciate between just being impressed by his accomplishments and making him a “greater” person. Sorry Kurt, I will try and love you all equally 🙂
Also I am starting to challenge some New Age (?) assumptions that I always just accepted as possible truth. For instance the idea of unprocessed foods having more “life energy” (prana, chi, ki etc) than processed foods. I am not sure if this is also a New Age concept but I suddenly had thoughts and questions about how this would be possible. Doesn’t everything have life force? How could something have MORE life force? How could it lessen or disappear? If you go deep enought isn’t everything equal?
And I got a bit of a scary thought now… What if my assumptions/belief that everyone has equal value is not true. That almost made me feel a bit guilty.
Why do you “want to believe that everyone and everything has equal value”? Who told you that this is a perspective that you should adopt? Is it so?
Reinterpreting the world as a vast flatland of equivalent value does a kind of violence to our common sense recognition of differential adequacy. As a case in point, while granting that all people should be granted equal protections under the law in a civil society, it’s quite a different matter to assert that all people are equally just (or innocent) in their actions. All valuations occur within a limited scope; assessing my value as a human being is not the same task as evaluating my performance in a particular domain of competence. The saints and sages who report (or about whom it is reported) that they see everyone and everything the same are so identified with their objects of assessment that they make no distinction between themselves and those objects: they love each and all. But this is not necessarily the same sort of estimation that they might make of, say, how tasty a meal is, or how enjoyable a piece of music. If everything has the same value, across all dimensions of possible assessment, then nothing has any value at all–since every attribution of worth is relative to something else.
So I had some very funny and interesting experiences today that I believe are releated to some of the subjects from our classes.
I was out walking after work and suddenly in my mind I was thinking of myself running down a football field towards the touchdown area holding “the book of life” or “the book of the world” under my arm and a commentator was yelling “AND HE COULD GO … ALL. … THE … WAY!!!!” I can’t remember seeing any defence… This could possibly mean I’m in for a big surprise if or when the defence shows up(?)
Also I have been fascinated by Babaji’s talks about resemblances, adjacency, analogies etc etc but I have to admit it has felt so intellectually heavy that I have avoided thinking about it too much and just trying to “feel” the importance of it. However today I suddenly felt a very strong focus and started watching all kinds of things and getting all kinds of thoughts about things, their placing, things next to each other, opposites, reflections, analogies etc. Thought about things next to each other in nature, thoughts about what nature is, if humans put two things next to each other what is the significance and is it still “nature” when humans arrange things/objects. Then I started looking at numbers and structures and the placements. For instance a friend sent me a number sequence as a reply to a long email. 1235321. Then I could see that 2 is adjacent to 3 which is adjacent to 5. 3 + 2 = 5. Then “321” is a reflection of “123”. Then I thought about people walking around with their heads pointing towards the sky and the same happens on the other side of the world like it is a reflection. Then the opening and closing of flowers resembling (or an analogy?) my fluctuations of interest and disinterest in various practices. And it went on and on….
Dear Babaji, I enjoy the process for the process sake.. But as you like to know what is on our minds, I bring some comments and questions and other things that are rumbling around in my head forward.
One is with regard to perennial-ism. I have read lots of selections from various religions, and have found them very soothing. A message throughout them that says something to the effect that there is a kind God in charge, and we would know this, if only we got to know him or her better. But you are starting to make me wonder about the translations, and the selections. And the realm of the spiritual and the religious has me mostly gravitating toward selections and translations I like, that bring me comfort or joy. You are making me realize that I haven’t yet really confronted the other, but only sought verification of an explanations of the universe that didn’t scare me.
So then, I want to ask you, who is in charge, and is he or she benevolent? Will I get to know him or her? Who is the Authority of the Authorities? And if there is one, how do all the other Gods and Goddess, and everyone else work with him or her? Is Sacred Speech part of the answer?
There is a line in the Christian ‘Lord’s Prayer,” in which we plead with God the Father to, “Not to lead us into Temptation….” This line always perplexed me, because if he where all knowing and all good, wouldn’t he, of course, not lead us into temptation. In the Eden story, we blame the snake. But God planted the Apple tree, and for, goodness sake, who isn’t tempted to do what we’ve been told not too. So that line in the prayer struck me as a rather honest admission of the strange nature of God. When I think of the Gods associated with zodiac, and I think I have heard more about them from a New Age, Greek or Roman point of view, I think of them as constantly leading people into temptation. But I realize that this is also a very cartoon version of things. On your must-read books list is the Myth of Saturn, and I appreciated the love of Truth that this story stirred. I hope in the end, that it is all Good, even the Bad, but then, I think I am not alone in that. Most of all, I want to find a way to know the Truth, and to find a way to handle it, whatever it is.
Now, I have questions about prosperity. In another comment I brought up the Pandora’s box aspect to gifts, such as the printing press. And I don’t really get how Karma works, because it seems that sometimes virtue is awarded with a wealth that only gets the beholder in big trouble. I am sorry I am reducing things. And I know I don’t really know what I am talking about. But I think part of what we’re after is for me to expose my ignorance—which I think I have been doing a rather good job of all along….. Anyway, back to prosperity. I am eager to learn how prosperity can be associated with Sacred Speech. But it seems to me it isn’t only associated with sacred speech. Think of all the people who have great wealth who don’t use Sacred Speech. Think of all the poor who do use it. In my mind’s eye, I can see so many very humble people who came to the Kumbh Mela for the blessing it brings. And so many scoundrels are rich…. And some scoundrels are poor. I have heard rumors that the fortunes of India and the US will be reversed in time. But why, and please forgive me for asking this, can one say that Sacred Speech works when so many in India have experienced desperate poverty for what seems to me for so long. Mind you, there are many in the States who experience poverty too. I am reducing things again, but I wonder, “What’s up with Prosperity?” It doesn’t seem to be given only to those who practice Sacred Speech.
And it has struck me as rather ironic, and I hope you for forgive me for saying this, because it may sound disrespectful, that it is renunciates who lead us to prosperity. Why would sadhus be interested in our prosperity? Why would sadhus work with the Kings and the powerful? And I suppose some sadhus don’t. And I presume most actions are a result of great compassion.
On another aside, I wonder what passions are for, what emotions are for, what is ignorance for, what is greed for…. And if they have value, what is the value of correcting them? And I am longing for there to be lots of wholesome goodness in all of it…. And, from there, why would going fron cah to ca in the syllables excite some passions or other things, why is that in the design?
But/and if we are not evolving, than what is going on, assuming a benevolent universe? Or a malevolent one? Why just set everything up to have it just de-evolve?
Maybe you can tell I am searching for a loving hand in things, kind of like when I was thinking I was reading something real when I read very soothing translations from many different religions.
Many thanks to you, Babaji, and all the others in this class for your toleration of my questions and comments. There is another line in the Lord’s prayer which always perplexed me. It is “Forgive us our trespasses as I forgive the trespasses of others.” I figured, why on earth would I pray for conditional forgiveness? Why wouldn’t I pray, “ Forgive me my trespasses, no matter how little I forgive others?” I suppose it infers that I am asking for the strength to forgive others well. Anyway, I ask you all, forgive me, without conditions.
Wishing you each a lovely day/evening, Prosperity, and all good things.
Love and peach and joy to each of you,
Jennifer
2 Apr 2014
Great questions. Very valuable. I can imagine that very few people really know the answers to these questions.I have a very basic question about prosperity. What exactly is prosperity? What does it mean? I am intrigued by the concept of blessings and prosperity but I don’t really know what it is, how it works and what it does.
Jan Baggerud Larsen
2 Apr 2014
Who or what is the authority on Prosperity? I don’t know but I see that wikipedia defines it as follows:
“Prosperity is the state of flourishing, thriving, good fortune and / or successful social status. [1] Prosperity often encompasses wealth but also includes others factors which can be independent of wealth to varying degrees, such as happiness and health.”
Jennifer Harford
2 Apr 2014
Thanks, Jan. Sometimes I feel way out in left field with my questions. I think that the traditional Indian sense of prosperity has more to do with the collective than we might view it in the West. So the cows full with milk and good harvests are a bounty for all to enjoy.
Jennifer Harford
2 Apr 2014
We have an expression, “Fickle fortune.” I am thinking that the sense of Prosperity, in the traditional Indian sense, is different. from our sense of the fickleness of fortune But I cannot say how.
Jennifer Harford
2 Apr 2014
Here’s my attempt at brevity.1) Who/what, if anything/anyone is ultimately in charge of everything, and, if so, is this authority kind?
2) How do Gods and Demons work together, and, perhaps, in conjunction with some sort of ultimate authority?
3) How does one have a sense of the deification of the universe, without falling into a faith or belief-based system of thought. [ie How can one know the God Jupiter, with as much surety as a scientist might know the measurement the planet’s circumference]
4) What’s up with Prosperity?– It doesn’t seem to be given only to those who practice Sacred Speech. And how can it be that so many in India have been poor for so long?
5) Why do the Gods and gifts of prosperity sometimes lead one to temptation (ie the printing press]?
6) Why design speech so that going from one syllable to another gives rise to passions, emotions and other things? What good can there be in that?
7) If we don’t evolve, is the universe benevolent?
8) How do I find the Truth, and how do I make myself strong enough to handle knowing it? How do I come to know God?
Michelle Synnestvedt
3 Apr 2014
Jennifer Harford -WOW….. I just wanted to sat two things.
1. some these questions seem to be geared towards the process of discovery through contemplation, observation, and insight. I don’t know that you could get an “answer” per se to say, question number 1 unless you want to hear HOW Babaji sees the world/ extraordinary and ordinary. Most “answers” would be through a specific lens.
2. Even though India is considered “under developed” and is very poor by some standards in areas, I think it is one of the richest places I have ever been too. What they lack in $Money$ as a whole ( although there is BIG BIG MONEY in India) they have in spades when it comes to in richness in culture and connection to the ordinary /extraordinary. I also see that so many have taken from these gifts in India…taken the jewels so to speak…this seems to have been going on for thousands of years..so many invasions..because India has so many riches. In fact I have never felt more POOR than when I returned home to the west after being in India.
Jan Baggerud Larsen
5 Apr 2014
– Significance of adjaceny: Is there a difference between the significance of things placed next to each other in/by nature and the thing placed next to each other by human beings?
– Nature: What exactly is “nature”? Can something stop being a part of nature?
– Life force / prana / chi / ki: Can something have less life force than something else? For instance organic foods vs non organic foods. Is it possible for anything to have no life force? Isn’t everything alive?
– Does love have to be unconditional for it to be actual love? Is it possible for a human being to love unconditionally? Can you have “degrees” of unconditional love or does it have to be complete?
– How are our beliefs formed? How can we validate the truth of “direct experience”? How can we trust our senses and/or our interpretation of our experience?
– Who or what is the authority on Prosperity?
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
6 Apr 2014
Jan Baggerud Larsen – it doesn’t matter how things became adjacent, but remember, the visible sign (i.e., the adjacency) indicates an invisible connection/relationship. By perception, it’s all nature, its representation by thought is thought. Nature has density, thought has none. Prana is in living things, organic vs inorganic foods have to do with health beliefs more than their substance. But health beliefs can, of course, be very good for you. “Love” is one of those extremely abstract words, that can mean vastly different things to different people, and especially different cultures. When we discuss the 36 Tattvas, as I had intended this past week, we will see how when Shiva’s first shakti, Aananda, the cosmic undifferentiated, unchanging “feeling” of being, existence, i.e., bliss, is reflected in the individualized consciousness, differentiated through the presence of ego, feels a spectrum of varied and measured emotions, a range of which people describe as “love.” But, even great love, may have certain conditions, such as the baby for the mother, and even a seemingly unconditional love for the Mother Goddess may be conditioned on her unconditioned giving – of speech, abundance, and knowledge. Beliefs can be formed in so many ways often determined by cultural and linguistic conditioning, which is the major determinant of experience, even direct experience, itself. As we will see when we discuss Bhartrihari (5th century), it is very rare, indeed for cognition to escape the web of language. To validate direct experience is a circle game, you’re trying to use the premise as the proof, you’re the performer and the audience. It’s the folly and hubris of the human sciences, that we can “measure” ourselves by somehow standing outside of ourselves, that we can rid ourselves, for a moment, of all cultural and linguistic conditioning and programming, and sees ourselves from “God’s” point of view. We can trust our senses only so much as we can know them, and the better we know ourselves (including having identified the hordes of assumptions that sleep in our often unsuspecting minds) we interpret our experience for the prosperity of our tribe(s).
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
6 Apr 2014
Jennifer Harford – 1) Truthfully, whatever works for you, as long as it doesn’t result in the suffering of others. 2) I think you’re universalizing something that is ultimately very local. Ancient Indian demons called “asura” were the names of ancient Persian gods. And fundamentalizing it – you’re making them as humans and part of a human process, there may very well be reflections and correspondences, but they are also a different category of beings. 3) ditto – deification is not a disneyication, Chritianity, in its passion for converting the “heathen” reduced the whole idea of a deity to a fairy tale, devoid of any other content. Rishi Garg used his intimacy with the God Jupiter, to know his home’s distance from Earth. It took astronomers and scientists more than 2500 years to corroborate that. 5) Prosperity has little to do with money, even if money does help quite a bit these days. India has been poor since She was brutally raped and pillaged, looted and robbed by the British Colonials. India was always known as the land of milk and honey before that – for 1000’s of years. That’s one of the reasons people always came to India, to seek their fortunes. 6) You are assuming that someone is designing speech like they might design a machine or gadget. Again assigning very human, post industrial revolution qualities to some “being” who is “designing” speech. We are not going from one syllable to another, as in a game of hop-scotch, or through a mechanical process, but we are learning to discover adjacency of “sounds” that live in our mouths, and are curious to discover what connections they have with each other signified by their adjacencies and touching. 7) In other words you are asking, “Is the universe moral?” and I think that has got to do with what you believe and what your conditioning is. But I would be careful of “humanizing” the universe, giving it human qualities and measurements. 8) You find truth by knowing your self, and, I guess, that’s probably a good way to know God, as well.
3 Apr 2014
From a cultural studies perspective, “authority” and “reality” are mutually dependent.
In everyday life, we legitimize authority and reality through consensus. For example, we agree that “those in charge” (the Authorities) belong there–at least tolerably well enough that we don’t usually try to unseat them violently. And we agree about the nature of reality in enough ways (through our overlapping perspectives), and for a sufficient portion of the time, that the status quo (existing arrangements of social organization) can proceed. Questioning consensus reality is bound to be received as a challenge to varied authorities. This is because the interrogation of power may erode the popular perception of an authority’s legitimacy.
I imagine that authority and reality are analogously linked in other domains of human experience as well. Authority is conferred to those upon whom we are dependent for our direct experience, or definition, of reality.
Jan Baggerud Larsen
3 Apr 2014
Thank you Kurt. Very good explanation. I believe it is the legitimacy part I am contemplating the most right now.
So again today after work I got into a very focused mode after reading more about the size of the moon, sun and earth, the biggest stars, the size of universe etc.
So many questions and thoughts and possibilites started appearing. I am sure these questions have been on the mind of philosophers and other people probably forever but I never studied philosophy
and in the past I had no interest whatsoever in these concepts. So I actually believe and in a way felt that some of these questions and possible insights came from or through “me” instead of
directly from someone else or directly from books.
– How is it possible to really understand what inifinity is. How can someone even come up with the idea of infinity without directly experiencing it?
– The whole concept of “zero”. What does it actually mean? Can anything/something be nothing? Something is nothing? Nothing is nothing?
– Is zero actually the same as inifinty? Is zero something that is infinitely small?
– Some scientist theorize that if you would be able to go to the end of the universe you would come back to where you started. Like going through a tunnel and when you get out of the tunnel you’re back at the beginning of the tunnel. Does that mean that if you would go further and futher inward in the body you would eventually end up at “everywhere”? Like going/being/becoming infintely small makes you infinitely big, and vice versa?
– if somethings is infinitely small is that actually the same as inifintely large?
– Is “everything” the same as infinity? Is “nothing” the same as infinity?
– Are these things/concepts related to the meaning of “as above so below”?
– Some say that it is false to talk about what the expanding universe is expanding into because the universe is infinite and the universe is everyting. So if it is everything there is nothing to expand into even if it is expanding. So it is not expanding into infinity but in infinity? This make me start thinking about reflection, resemblance, adjaceny, analogies etc and then the sentence starts changing. Not expanding into infinity – contracting into infinity – Expanding in infinity – Expanding into finity – etc etc.
Yikes!
