We are in the 21st century and yet there are millions and millions of people who demand proof about the existence of God. Ronald Regan, the former U.S. president, once said, "Sometimes when I'm faced with an atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we have finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there's a cook."
Then there are others who do stupid things in the name of religion and faith. What a shame it is! We are talking of 7 billion people and more with conflicts in their mind and the impact this negative energy has on the human race. How many people on earth exist who have found unity in their religion and faith and discovered that same unity amongst all religions? Which fool told you that religious scriptures prove the existence of god? All religions are representations of that great truth called God. Religions exist to help you remember truth not become one. The proof of God is in realisation of that great teachings handed out to us. That realisation is your responsibility not someone else's. You own the right to prove or disprove God. Not a scientist not a religious teacher.
I am about to reveal to you one of the many secrets from my latest book: "The Danger of Proof: How Science Influences Your Thinking, Limits Your Potential and Kills the God Within." This secret makes the argument of god delusion by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and many other others redundant.
The Closely Guarded Secret: Two Important Words That Science Can Learn From Ramakrishna
Ramakrishna, Paramahansa one of India's greatest religious teachers used to say that everything in this world -- the sun, the moon, the stars, the nature of human beings, events in the world, everything that we see, touch, hear or feel -- is a fact not a reality. Reality is what happens inside of you in relation to the facts of the external world.
Let us understand this more clearly with an example.
If someone close to you dies you feel sad however chances are your neighbour might not feel anything bad about the event.
Fact: Someone close to you died.
Reality: You felt sad.
However your neighbour did not feel sad. He could not feel the connection which you felt toward the person who died and so the event of death was a fact for him not a reality.
So now we have two realities for one fact. You got sad however your neighbour did not feel the same towards the event. He could see the dead body before him but no tears flowed from his eyes. Why is that so?
Lets take another example. If you and your neighbour were walking in the forest and a tiger appears before you, how would both of you react. Obviously both of you would be terrified, right?
Fact: Tiger appearing before you.
Reality: Both of you felt the fear of death.
So in this case we have one fact and one reality. Why is that so?
When there are no conflicts in the mind between two or more people over the facts, reality is the same for everyone. However when there are conflicts over the facts reality no longer is the same for everyone.
Let's take another interesting example from the life of the great Ramakrishna.
When a cow was beaten, Ramakrishna felt the pain in his own body as if someone was beating him. He would jump with pain but others close to him would not feel the pain.
Fact: A cow was being hit.
Reality: Ramakrishna felt the pain in his body whilst others did not.
There are so many such examples in the lifes of great men and women like Jesus Christ, Buddha, Muhammad, Adi Shankaracharya, Ramana Maharishi and many others. They owned the pain of the world. They embraced the sorrow of humanity.
Science uses proof to bridge the gap between facts and reality.
Facts + Proof = Reality for science
That is the lowest definition of reality...
Ramakrishna gave a new definition to reality one that science should take note of.
Facts+ Level of consciousness = Reality
This is the greatest definition you can ever have of reality.
When a cow was beaten others did not feel the pain. However the consciousness of Ramakrishna was very broad. He was not holed up in his tiny little body. The pain of the world was the pain of Ramkrishna.
Science does not take into account the subjective development of human character. This is the biggest mistake science has been making and the reason why it has still not found unity whilst great teachers have.
A wise teacher once said, "To a nail everything is a hammer. To a frog everything is a snake. To a scientist everything is proof."
Scientists cannot think beyond proof. Fact plus proof does not equal reality. Science should better be aware of this. The reality of the universe presented to us by science based on the proof collected is not the greatest reality of the universe. There are higher realities in existence and these can be known and observed only when the level of consciousness changes. When the level of consciousness changes the proof collected by the scientists at a lower level of consciousness becomes redundant.
Reality is always what happens inside of you. Whatever happens outside is always a fact -- always. What happens outside is called a objective world and what happens inside your being is called a subjective world.
Great teachers like Krishna, Buddha, Christ and many others focussed on the growth of human character. The level of consciousness of a being -- the subjective growth. As the level of consciousness increases your reality changes. It is very important to understand this phenomena. We are not atoms and molecules. The discovery of the Higgs boson field, the black hole, the big bang helps you in understanding the evolution of the world but a scientist who feels it has got any co-relation to the non-existence of god has only to be sympathised with for his level of consciousness is at a lower level. If that same scientist improves his character, loves himself more, loves others more, is at peace with himself, is at peace with the outside world chances are he would not relate his discovery to the non-existence of God. The level of consciousness is the single most important factor in determining reality.
"The reality of the universe presented to us by science based on the proof collected is not the greatest reality of the universe. "
what is meant by 'greatest'? Does he mean 'complete' instead? If that is the case, then scientists are the first to admit that there are several unknowns. Why does he think scientists have not found unity?
Actually, if I had to make one (of several) rebuttals, I would say objective facts+ perception of objective facts = subjective reality.
This is not to say that Ramakrishna was not one of the greatest living ascetics of all time - he was indeed an admirable personality. But we can't confuse empathy with supernatural trans-body experience. At the end of the day, I might be connected to the external world, but am still inside this body. I can't telepathically make the cow beater stop beating the cow. I have to physically do something about it. Feeling the cow's pain is not good enough.
"Facts+ Level of consciousness = Reality" and
"Science does not take into account the subjective development of human character. This is the biggest mistake science has been making and the reason why it has still not found unity whilst great teachers have."
on an internet post that is filled with rational thinking people who are well-acquainted with these sorts of arguments and have the mind to criticize them. Very courageous. This article was also very unprepared.
I am totally confused by what the author means by reality. He seems to be mixing it up with perception. I think what he is getting at is the Vedantic concept of Maya. The appearance of the tiger is an objective reality, but being afraid of it is a perception, in other words a subjective reality. So, the experience of fear of one person is not felt by another person and hence it is not objective. The author seems to get this spot on, but then what this has to do with level of consciousness is unclear. Does he mean that if Ramakrishna Paramahansa were confronted with a tiger, he would not feel fear because he was at a higher 'level of consciousness'? Well, neither would a bacterium or an ant (from a great distance). Otherwise, does the author mean that Ramakrishna would feel the fear of both the friends confronted with the tiger? Perhaps this is true. So what?
"Scientists cannot think beyond proof." Really? Every major scientific discovery has been made by someone thinking beyond proof.
Attempts at testing, refining, explaining and proving are important. But the grand ideas? The leaps in understanding? Those weren't made by people who would only think about what could be proved. The best scientists are full of imagination, wonder, awe and creativity. They excel at connecting the dots in unexpected ways. But because truth is important to them, and they know that advancing understanding only comes when their foundations are strong, they do seek ways to prove their ideas (or if the evidence requires it, to revise or reject them).
I applaud your definition of "reality" for that is reality for human beings living inside the mechanism. We literally live inside our heads and "we" doesn't exist anywhere else. But I do protest your denigration of science, and the facts, and what really exists.
Science is not a level of experience, let alone a lower level. It is what we can know about that "external world" (which you seem to agree exists) from a process of logical induction, separate from our subjective experience of it. The reason our immaterial conscious reality matters at all is that it maintains our biological existence in that external world from which it arises. The legitimacy of our experience is not that it is the truth or that it is "higher" but that it is what works; what has been created by natural selection. Scientifically, my most cherished subjective beliefs are only inventions of a brain which are there to maintain my body's homeostatis as it reacts to the external world. Subjectively those patterns of neurons firing WORK, and are all "I" have. It is the humility of embracing both these realities that helps me resist making others, including scientists, wrong.
But still, we do not know everything. That's why we have science, to figure things out. However you feel about something, you're pretty much stuck at placebo effects, when it comes to solving problems.
Ramakrishna's religious activity was only meditation. Christian monks were the pioneers in meditation. Monasteries of Europe are living monuments to show the importance given by monks for meditation, living alone in monasteries in forests and leading alife of povery and hard work. A famous monk, Anthony, lived alone in a desert and in caves, fasting for several days without drinking even water. It is said devils and evil spirits would flee whenever he came out of the cave. At his very touch people with incurable diseases would be healed.
Richard Dawkins' and Cristopher Hitchens' arguments are just as salient as ever, and definitely unscathed by this promotional.
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some
organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of
existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
And of course the article echos the thoughts of the great Dr Carl Gustav Jung:
Of course God cannot be proved, for how could, say a clothes moth that eats
Australian wool prove to other moths that Australia exist? God’s existence does not
depend on proofs.
Carl Gustav Jung
"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world
calls for the divine."
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist)
I am grateful for this every time I get on an airplane, take medicine, use my computer, check weather reports .... why should I act any different when someone asserts a creation story, a redemption story, a flood myth, angels, demons... ?
Religion deals with our growth in character while science about everything in the world. They are both parallel but if you put science before religion it is like putting the cart before the horse..They both can co-exist first comes good character and then science. You have to perfect your inner tool before you know what you want from the world. That requires tremendous dedication and perseverance. That is what religion in its core is all about