The lure of Maya.

From the Mundaka Upanishad.

The Purusa is transcendental, since S/He is formless. And since S/He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since S/He is birthless, therefore S/He is without vital force and without mind. S/He is pure and superior to the (other) superior imperishable (Máyá).

All that we are, and all that we see and feel and touch - is a part of Máyá. We live every day within social systems of nations and communities and amongst our families; and we talk about our histories of the past and of wars fought long ago and being fought in the present  – all of this is Máyá. We believe this to be Life; this life is so extremely tangible and tactile and visceral -  we assume this to be Real. We love our children; and we love our lovers and we love our parents – and we are caught in this love. And because we believe in this life with absolute conviction – it is nearly as perfect as Brahman/ Purusa Itself from within which we all emerged.

Why is Máyá imperishable? – is it not obvious? -- we are caught in the cycle of life.

And Máyá is nearly as superior to the Purusa/ Brahman which is “coextensive” with the whole Universe and is “birthless.”

Can Europe undo the epistemic violence of the past?

Can Europe undo the epistemic violence of the past?

What is an undisputed fact is that the epistemic violence that accompanies any Eurocentric discourse about the Other, enables and allows for the emergence of an unfathomable kind of a civilizational difference, where the writing Self-Subject and the Other are always caught in static binaries. There is a large body of theoretical scholarship that examines the nature of western colonial encounters with the colonies. For the most, postcolonial theory has tended to focus on the engagement between Europe and the colonies they acquired in Asia and Africa. Frantz Fanon (1925-1961), for example, in his works arrives at a disenfranchised Alegrian identity which underwent absolute rupture in the presence of the French colonizer.^[1] In Black Skin, White Mask, he writes that the black psyche undergoes alienation in the presence of the superior French culture. He describes the black man in the following manner:

The black man has two dimensions. One with his fellows, the other with the white man. A Negro behaves differently with the white man and with another Negro. That this self division is a direct result of colonialist subjugation is beyond question. …

Every colonized people – in other words, every people in whose soul an inferiority complex has been created by the death and burial of its local cultural originality – finds itself face to face with the language of the civilizing nation; that is, with the culture of  the mother country. The colonized is elevated above his jungle status in proportion to his adoption of the mother country’s cultural standards. He becomes whiter as he renounces his blackness, his jungle.^[2]

For Fanon, European cultural engagement leads to a complete erasure of his black African identity. What we draw from Fanon, who was writing around the 1950s, is a kind of an idea of the hybrid subject, where he describes a socio-psychical situation where the colonial subject was absolutely at the mercy of the colonial powers.

---

[1] His following works are representative of his ideas: Black Skin, White Mask, Reprint of Peau noire, masques blancs (London: Pluto Press, 1986) and The Wretched of the Earth, Reprint of Les damnes de la terre  (New York: Grove, 1968).

[2] “Remembering Fanon, Introduction,” in Black Skin, White Mask, ed. Homi Bhabha, pp. 17-18.

Gandhiji's bhajan in these divisive times? .... ishwar allah tero naam.

Extracts from the Mundaka Upanishad:

Who is God? – God creates all we are; and we have to be willing to belief that everything around emerges from God.

 

From God emerge all the oceans and all the mountains. From It flow out the rivers of various forms. And from It issue all the corns as well as the juice, by virtue of which the internal self verily exists in the midst of the elements.

All the religions – “the rivers of various forms” – emerge from God. We have to be willing to believe that.

 

As rivers, flowing down, become indistinguishable on reaching the sea by giving up their names and forms, so also the illumined soul, having become freed from name and form, reaches the self-effulgent Purusa that is higher than the higher (Máyá).

 

We have to believe that all religions – the “rivers” - lead the way to realizing God; they become “indistinguishable on reaching the sea[God]” – all religions – Hinduism and Christianity and Islam – become “freed from name and form” and from their individual characteristics and realise that there is but one God.

 

Every school going child in India knows Gandhiji’s song: “Raghupati Raghava Rajaram”; which is basically a Tulsidas bhajan. Tulsidas lived in the middle of the 16^th c in Benaras; he was a devotee of Sri Rama; and in this particular bhajan – which glorifies Sri Rama – there is this couplet tucked in and it is the central refrain of the song:

Ishawar Allah tero naam [your name is Ishwar or Allah]

Sabko sanmati de bhagwan.  [give all of us this mind frame to understand it]

That this idea was propounded 500 years ago – by a Hindu poet – does reflect a lot about the socio-cultural systems from within which he emerged; despite being a devotee of Sri Rama, and this particular bhajan of Gandhiji sings the glories of Sri Ramachandra, Tulsidas argues for the truth that God is synonymous with both Allah and Ishwar.   

heathens and more? ....

Monotheistic religions fundamentally refuse to accept that the Other might have something to offer;

if we look closely at how Christian missionaries proselyted in the early years of the East India Company settlements in Bengal, India (late 18^th C)– and there is ample documented evidence regarding this -- we will conclude that monotheistic religions define themselves through exclusionary terms; the Other cannot exist and so the Other has to be denied.

Below is an extract from a tract Rammohun Roy wrote regarding this:

From:

THE BRAHMUNICAL MAGAZINE OR THE MISSIONARY AND THE BRAHMUN BEING A 

VINDICATION OF THE HINDOO RELIGION AGAINST THE ATTACKS OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES.

CALCUTTA, 

1821. 

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

For a period of upwards of fifty years, this country (Bengal) has been in exclusive possession of the

English nation; during the first thirty years of which, from their word and deed, it was universally believed that they would not interfere with the religion of their subjects, and that they truly wished every man to act in such matters according to the dictates of his own conscience. Their possessions in Hindoostan and their political strength have, through the grace of God gradually increased. But during the last twenty years, a body of English gentlemen who are called missionaries, have been publicly endeavouring, in several ways, to convert Hindoos and Mussulmans of this country into Christianity. The first way is that of publishing and distributing among the natives various books, large and small, reviling both religions, and abusing and ridiculing the gods and saints of the former: the second way is that of standing in front of the doors of the natives or in the public roads to preach the excellency of their own religion and the debasedness of that of others: the third way is that if any natives of low origin become Christians from the desire of gain or from any other motives, these gentlemen employ and maintain them as a necessary encouragement to others to follow their example.

Duh… really; but is there not but one God?

Duh… really; but is there not but one God?

Christian theologians are grossly myopic and mostly uneducated on other religions; if they were otherwise – they would have, by now, joined the dots from all the religions and arrived at the conclusion that all religions are the same and the God referred to in the Bible – is actually the same God in other religions. Monotheistic religions shy away from making such claims; they define themselves through exclusionary means which reiterates their separateness from other faiths and traditions. And we wonder – what tradition and faith do they come from that the believers of the monotheistic religions simply reject the Other as either being deviant or less truthful – only fit for heathens.

I, undoubtedly, occupy a place of being a heathen Other – from the perspective of the western Christian theologians – but the sad truth is that unless we join the dots, our children will inherit a world that is torn apart by religious zealotry.

To the untrained mind, there are irreconcilable differences between Hinduism and the Biblical monotheistic religions; concepts of Original Sin and Evil do not exist in the former.

Christian theologians need to be aware that there are no differences between the basic tenets being propounded in the Bible and what is also articulated in the Upanishads.

 

In the Garden of Eden, mankind was aware of the fact that they were one with God and had emerged from this spiritual Omniscient Being. This awareness made them immortal; once the Fall took place, they lost this sense of spiritual awareness. In the Mundaka Upanishad, Brahman is defined as “immortal and undecaying by nature,” “true and imperishable.” The Kena Upanishad refers to this in the following manner:

The wise ones, having realized (Brahman) in all beings, and having turned away from this world, become immortal. (part 2. Verse 5)

Expulsion from the Garden of Eden; how Sin came into the world.

The notion of Evil or Original Sin tantamounts to humankind being in a state of not recognizing God or being aware of God; this lack of spiritual awareness of God – that the whole Universe is but Brahman/ God – and humankind and the world are but an extension of It and created out of It – is being in a state of having Sinned. Hinduism calls this Maya – when we assume the corporeal parts of the world as the Real and forget that the world is but a manifestation of God.  The Mundaka Upanishad describes it as the following:

The Purusa [the Bible refers to this as the Holy Spirit] is transcendental, since S/He is formless. And since S/He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since S/He is birthless, therefore S/He is without vital force and without mind. S/He is pure and superior to the (other) superior imperishable (Máyá). [The notion of Maya is akin to the Fall and humankind’s expulsion from Eden and spiritual separation from God].

 

The whole purpose of one’s existence is to realize Brahman, or to go back to an Edenic stage and be one with God: and this is how the Kena Upanishad describes it (Part 1):

 

The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know (Brahman to be such and such); hence we are not aware of any process of instructing about It.

 

If we were told that there really is not any difference in the stories that the Bible and the Upanishads are telling us – then, we would be open to accepting that those religions which use these texts are not really different from each other. At the core, these religions are all the same; and they refer to the same God. By refusing to see these similarities, we coerce ourselves to believe in lies that enables differences to emerge when in actuality there are no differences.  

 

If we want to leave a religion-war-free world for our children, we have to be committed to ensuring that all religions are able to articulate similar narratives.

 

Lets hold hands and sing songs of peace...

Lets hold hands and sing songs of peace ...

To the untrained mind, there are irreconcilable differences between Hinduism and the Biblical monotheistic religions; concepts of Original Sin and Evil do not exist in the former.

Christian theologians need to be aware that there are no differences between the basic tenets being propounded in the Bible and what is also articulated in the Upanishads.

 

In the Garden of Eden, mankind was aware of the fact that they were one with God and had emerged from this spiritual Omniscient Being. This awareness made them immortal; once the Fall took place, they lost this sense spiritual awareness.

The Kena Upanishad says this in the following manner:

The wise ones, having realized (Brahman) in all beings, and having turned away from this world, become immortal. (part 2. Verse 5)

The notion of Evil or Original Sin tantamounts to being in a state of not recognizing God or being aware of God; this lack of spiritual awareness of God – that the whole Universe is but Brahman/ God – and humankind and the world are but an extension of It and created out of It – is being in a state of having Sinned. Hinduism calls this Maya – when we assume the corporeal parts of the world as the Real and forget that the world is but a manifestation of God.  The whole purpose of one’s existence is to realize Brahman: and this is how the Kena Upanishad describes it (Part 1):

 

3    The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know (Brahman to be such and such); hence we are not aware of any process of instructing about It.

 

4. That (Brahman) is surely different from the known; and again, It is above the unknown” – such was (the utterance) we heard of the ancient (teachers) who explained It to us.

Do they lie when they talk about differences....

The story on Creation from the Book of Genesis:

 

[1:20] And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."
[1:21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:22] God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[1:23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
[1:24] And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.
[1:25] God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

 

In the Mundaka Upanishad, a similar narrative is told: (Second Mundaka/ Canto 1)

 

2.    The Purusa is transcendental, since S/He is formless. And since S/He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since S/He is birthless, therefore S/He is without vital force and without mind.

3.    From Her/Him originates the vital force as well as the mind, all the senses, space, air, fire, water, and earth that supports everything.

5. From Her/Him emerges the fire (i.e. heaven) of which the fuel is the sun. From the moon emerges cloud, and (from cloud) the herbs and corns on the earth. A woman uses her ovum to create children/ A man sheds the semen into a woman. From the Purusa have originated many creatures. 

 

7. And from Her/Him duly emerged the gods in various groups, the Sádhyas, human beings, beasts, birds, life, rice and barley, as well as austerity, faith, truth, continence and dutifulness. 

 

If we were told that there really is not any difference in the stories that the Bible and the Upanishads are telling us – then, we would be open to accepting that those religions which use these texts are not really different from each other. At the core, these religions are all the same; and they refer to the same God. By refusing to see these similarities, we coerce ourselves to believe in lies that enables differences to emerge when in actuality there is no difference.  

The warp and woof of God.

The divisive elements that are fundamental to the monotheistic religions need to be examined. If we are able to understand that the basic premises on which all religions rest are the same – and if we are able to sift out the core episteme patterns which form the warp and woof of all religions, then we will be able to realise that all religious systems actually articulate similar thoughts.  

The following story about Creation is an extract from The Genesis (Old Testament):

Chapter 1

[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

 

A similar story is told in the Aiterya Upanishad:

 

1.              Om! In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone. There was nothing else whatsoever that winked. It thought, ‘Let Me create the worlds.’

 

2.              S/he/ It created these worlds, viz. ambhas, maríci, mara, ápah. That which is beyond heaven is ambhas. Heaven is its support. The sky is maríci. The earth is mara. The worlds that are below are the ápah.

 

What is the purpose of stating that all religions actually are the same; we can conclude that there is but one God and how we name that God is just different. Yes – this might just throw those men who run religious institutions out of business – but who gains if these men lose their jobs? What if the Vatican was made to become a defunct institution? We, the people would gain. We could reclaim God and re-read the religious texts in order to create gender parity around the world and subsequently, bring in some form of peace and stability. This reinterpretation of all religions would put an end to the Culture Wars that are being waged all around.

 

There are civilizational wars being fought in the present; these wars cost a ton of money and are being waged at the expense of the next generation. The question we all need to ask is this: what will our children inherit? – social structures that are very divisive and drawn out within very specific socio-religious systems and these are actually creating irreconcilable differences. Our children might just inherit a world that is filled with war zones.   

 

 

John Donne --Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, "Meditation XVII"

 

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. … any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."

Should we tell the world about the textual flaws? ... shhh.

The first two chapters of the Book of Genesis (in the Old Testament) do not hold together in terms of textual coherence; there is a sense of closure by the end of Chapter 1 and we do not really expect a repetition of the same story in Chapter 2. In the second chapter, the story is not only repeated but also told differently. It is clear that the first two chapters were written by two different authors.  

 

In Chapter 1, we learn that God is good; and we are told what comprises this notion of “goodness”; God also made human in its likeness and made them in an act that was simultaneous:

 

[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

 

In other words, God created both man and woman. On the other hand, in Chapter 2, we learn that God first made man and then, a rib of man was used to make woman. In other words, woman is seen as being an appendage to man and thus, she is his subordinate. The good God also becomes misogynous and this is seen as a normative behavior of God. This narrative clearly negates the story of Creation as is narrated in Chapter 1.  These two chapters, thus, contradict each other. The lack of textual cohesion makes the first two chapters of the Genesis suspect; we really are unable to say with authority that these two chapters were the products of a single author.