Bharat Sandhaan Issue 1

7/21/2019 Bharat Sandhaan Issue 1

1/52

i-vxi Sxix E v {jE


2/52

i, nnE i, +{xB Wi E nEESxE B x = * =

xix Vi xE B V={ M


3/52

1i-vx,+E 1,2011i-vx +E 1,2011

,

-1 2011-


4/52

2

i-vx E |E +{E l*


5/52

3i-vx,+E 1,2011

i-vx E +l + =q


6/52

4

i vx E +l+ =q

nxEu = M


7/52

5i-vx,+E 1,2011

i vx E +l + =q

n jE l


8/52

6

(1905 +xn cn +{x UcE EEk +M+ M ] +nx E xii Ex M* +OW x E rP E i Ex E B =xx MMv iE E l EEO ] (M ) n E l{x E* lc iEE l n iji +nx E |J MnE x M* EEk =xx n inxE E {nx | E V |E] E M

xix vE +l +xn

=xE Sx n E VxiE ih Gi n* +OW E =xE =O nH{hS

i =`* 1908 =xnp E +{ xWn E n M* V * S {IE E E { SkVx n E +lE { +xn En MB* +xn EV BE M +viE +xi


9/52

7i-vx,+E 1,2011

EM


10/52

8

J { +xi Ek ni, Exixix v i Vx , =ix ExE SW x Vix V x =ixE* vVE x-{x x-Vi E Eh E B |SxE


11/52

9i-vx,+E 1,2011

EExx E ?

v nxE iji { E p E E {

l{i B + ixji E n ]E E x Vx

Vi* nxE i nx i |i l* |

=xE +xE E i+nJi * |ii E i i E

Six E i M + E iE +H *

iZE i xn, M, x E xx E ? { n, n x Exx E ? EExx E i, EExx E ?

E xSj { +Ei jV, C i?

x E xSh E og E{x x C i?nE Yi, xMgi+E S Yx , { n, x i{il {x * Vci+ U{E Six Exx E * EExx E i! EE xx E ?

i , x x Vi >S SgE { l,i , Vn E + + l*

i VE vx +V x i Ei ,lE


12/52

10

EExx E ?

i-vx,+E 1,2011

E


13/52

11i-vx,+E 1,2011

?

i E Vi E |Sx i Ex x {h{l * x


14/52

12

C i Sxix +V |ME ?

i-vx,+E 1,2011

Ei E S *


15/52

13i-vx,+E 1,2011

Yi H-1

VqEh iE Vx 12


16/52

14

M-M x {, iE Eh {E


17/52

15i-vx,+E 1,2011

+ +{x{{Mi {riE, Vl Z +Mi , +EEBE x


18/52

16

(28 Vx, 1900 EEx E {bx xM E E v xn n M h)

Exxn

V JV E u


19/52

17i-vx,+E 1,2011

+ +vE ZMc +n ExMi*


20/52

18

*


21/52

19i-vx,+E 1,2011

+ ix Vi E +xi+S E +H Ex E BE vx *tSSE E { {g


22/52

20

{Si {{ E {i, nE E E v M Sxix |M l* nE@xVx l E x E E ix E {E E H *


23/52

21i-vx,+E 1,2011

ii{E i E xn +{xxE |G E-E V EniU+EEU vx=i{z Ei VE +OWB x Ei* xn E =SSh EiBEx li +{xxE- EJ Ji*


24/52

22i-vx,+E 1,2011

= J E |M x EEiExi v E v Sxix + Si i S Uc *

EE n +l-- {xiBE


25/52

23i-vx,+E 1,2011i- +E 1,2011

EE E i EiiB bE E tix Ei * B xx i

E E S++xE {nl +* =x {nlEn nJi* {xiC {nl=xnJx x ij +ii Ji? nn, nnJx x iC nJVx{nlE k M? x Vx {SEi C =xE k SEx x +Mi ? +ix Vi E E {nl jj +ii Ji* =nh E B xi

E E


26/52

24

+M ={c* {] E x u =E


27/52

25i-vx,+E 1,2011


28/52

26i-vx,+E 1,2011


29/52

27i-vx,+E 1,2011 7i-vx +E 1,2011

1.{ B


30/52

28

n { i E {

S x +{x+


31/52

29i-vx,+E 1,2011 2i-vx +E 1,2011

,

-

-

,

1. (1.1)( ,

)

2. : : (1.2)

(, ) (--

) ,

-,

-

-

, , ,

,

-

-

195

-


32/52

30

,

(,, , )

(,, , ) , ,

,

, , ,

() -:

( )

, -

-, - :,

-

i-vx,+E 1,2011


33/52

31i-vx,+E 1,2011

, i, i ,

,

, , , , ,

, , ,, , , , , , , , , -

,

-

,

:

, , , , , ,

, - -

-

-


34/52

32

,

, ,

--

, ? ? ? ? -

-

,

(),

, , -, ,

, - , ,

, , , , -, -,

, , , , , ,, , C ,

, (),

-

i-vx,+E 1,2011


35/52

33i-vx,+E 1,2011

,

, -

-

, , ()

,

-- -- -

. ,

3. : (1.3)

(,,

, )

-


36/52

34i-vx,+E 1,2011

Yoga of Silence orChup Sadhana

Mansoor was born into a traditional Muslim family in Old Delhi in 1954. Post-partition

India, was full of deep wounds and distrust between the different religiouscommunities.From a very young age Mansoor was acutely aware of these immense contradictions and

there was a feeling that somewhere, there must be a common ground and a meeting point

beyond all these conflicting religious and sectarian beliefs.

In his teens Mansoor, by chance, started reading books by Ramana Maharishi,

whose teachings were to later have a profound influence on him. At the age of 17 Mansoor

travelled around Europe and then went on to live in America for the next 24 years. There

he was able to view life from many different angles and explored a wide range of spiritual

traditions: Vedanta, J. Krishnamurti, Zen, Catholicism, Transcendental Meditation, EST

etc. He travelled on pilgrimages, and at times was also actively involved with different

spiritual organizations.This period abroad, most importantly led to, and developed Mansoors unorthodox

understanding and appreciation of Indian philosophy. He had to explore, outside in order

to recognize the great wisdom, sitting in Indian spiritual traditions.

In 1992 Mansoor returned to India, discovered Vipassana and then started practicing

Yoga in the Sivananda tradition. A whole new path opened up for him, combining the

practice of awareness learnt in Vipassana with Hatha Yoga. Manoor became a Yoga

teacher, and has now been teaching and conducting retreats in USA, India and Eruope

for the last 13 years. His multi-facetted background, and his openness to embrace and

to experience Knowledge from many different sources, has given Mansoor a unique

approach, and he has stirred and motivated students from all over the world.In 1998 Mansoor started studying the scriptures seriously, and taught himself

enough Sanskrit to be able to understand the original Indian texts. This knowledge of

scripture, particularly the Bhagavad Gita, which has always been closest to his heart,

balanced with personal experience, has given a depth to his understanding. Mansoor is

able to share and communicate this understanding in a remarkable and revealing way,

creating a bridge between the different traditions, East and West, ancient and present.

This book [Chup Sadhana from which the present extractrs have been taken] seems

to have had a life of its own, and has undergone many changes and transformations over

the last 2 years. The final version, which has turned out to be an exploration of Silence,

was written in Rishikesh on the banks of the Ganga.(The above introduction to Mansoor is by Clarissa, a close colleague of his. Mansoor

can be contacted at [email protected].)

Mansoor Abdulla


37/52

35i-vx,+E 1,2011

even when it appears that there is none. In the

same way, as there is a gap between the frames

of a film reel. When the reel moves through the

projector at a certain speed, it appears that there is

continuity and the gap is not seen. Similarly, the

faster the mind moves, the less the gap between

the thoughts is seen. The recognition of thesegaps is the first part of the practice. Stabilizing

and abiding in the gaps, is the next stage.

In these gaps, one gets a glimpse of who

one really is. Even to talk of getting a glimpse of

ones Self is to create duality; it is not that there

is one self that gets a glimpse of another self.

Experientially it is a feeling of coming together,

of merging, of becoming whole. This, in the

Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, is how the state of Yogais described.

These states of spontaneous Silence have

actually appeared in the lives of many people,

as some expanded peak experience, some

incredible feeling that lasted a few minutes or

a few hours. Somebody may have experienced

this walking on a beach, and felt as if a curtain

had lifted, where they experienced themselves,

as being one with the wind, the waves and

the sky. There may have been a feeling of theboundaries and definitions falling away. Another

person may have felt being bathed in Silence,

feeling oneself a newborn or an overwhelming

sense of purity. Someone may have experienced

a sudden intense love for total strangers, for no

apparent reason, or a deep feeling of security. It

could have been a feeling of all encompassing

compassion for every living being, for every

tree, for every plant, a deep sense of wonder or

simply a profound rejoicing in being.

These examples are glimpses of this state of

Silence, which underlies all experiences. It is that

Nothing in which all potentialities exists. This

Silence is not the opposite of sound, rather that,

in which both sounds and Silence are appearing.

In the early part of the practice it appears as an

object to be gained, but later on is recognized to

have been ones own Self, the Subject, all along.

The descriptions may be many, but what isbeing described is the Indescribable.

(To be continued)

Introductory remarks

Chup means to become quiet, and Sadhana

means the practice. Chup Sadhana is the practice

of becoming quiet, both inside and outside.

Before one starts to talk there is Silence, and

after the words come to an end there is Silence.

Chup Sadhana, is the practice of also feeling theSilence underlying the words, the Silence that

supports sound.

We have all, already practised Chup

Sadhana. Before one learnt to talk, one knew

how to be quiet effortlessly. Before one learnt to

think, one knew how to be thoughtless. Before

one knew how to be active, one knew how to be

at rest. So the effortless state was and is always

present.Nothing new is being talked about. Just

a new word is being used, because over time,

old words lose their power. The state of Yoga,

Samadhi, Transcendence, Infinity, Timelessness,

No Mind, are all synonyms for this Silence.

Silence, is also the closest way of describing an

effortless practice. This Silence, is not reached

by effort, by practices, by striving, but is ever-

present as the uncreated Subject.

To understand the principle behindeffortless practices, the example of boiling water

is helpful. Everywhere in the world, the nature

of water is essentially coolness. When a pot of

water is placed on a stove, and starts to boil, it is

no longer cool. The quality of the fire, which is

heat, has entered the water. To restore the water

to its natural state of coolness, all one has to do

is to remove the pot from the stove. The heat will

leave the water by itself. No effort is necessary.

Chup Sadhana or the Yoga of Silence, is the

practice of experiencing ones Self, ones natural

state, as the silent ground upon which all the

experiences of life are playing.

It is a question of catching these glimpses

of Silence, that appear spontaneously in the gap

between thoughts, between actions, between

events, between the in-breath and out-breath,

and also when one is just at rest.

In Indian philosophy, the stream of thoughtsis not considered to be unbroken. It is said, that

there is always a gap between two thoughts,

Yoga of Silence or Chup Sadhana


38/52

36

(The following piece has been taken from the book My View of the World which

Schrdinger published after winning the Nobel Prize in physics. Like some other

great physicists of his time, Schrdinger had a life-long interest in philosophy. He

was deeply influenced by the Indian Vedantic thought, and in several of his writings

he consistently propounded the view that our world, including the world of physics,

is just a reflection of the one consciousness, Brahman, which is the ultimate

constituent of the world.)

THE VEDANTIC VISION

Erwin Schrdinger

For philosophy, then, the real difficulty lies

in the spatial and temporal multiplicity

of observing and thinking individuals. If

all events took place in one consciousness, the

whole situation would be extremely simple.

There would then be something given, a simple

datum, and this, however otherwise constituted,

could scarcely present us with a diffi

culty ofsuch magnitude as the one we do in fact have on

our hands.

I do not think that this difficulty can be

logically resolved, by consistent thought, within

our intellects. But it is quite easy to express

the solution in words, thus: the plurality that

we perceive is only an appearance; it is not

real. Vedantic philosophy, in which this is a

fundamental dogma, has sought to clarify it by a

number of analogies, one of the most attractivebeing the many-faceted crystal which, while

showing hundreds of little pictures of what is in

reality a single existent object, does not really

multiply that object. We intellectuals of today

are not accustomed to admit a pictorial analogy

as a philosophical insight; we insist on logical

deduction. But, as against this, it may perhaps be

possible for logical thinking to disclose at least

this much: that to grasp the basis of phenomena

through logical thought may in all probability be

impossible, since logical thought is itself a part

of phenomena, and wholly involved in them;

and we may ask ourselves whether, in that case,

we are obliged to deny ourselves the use of an

allegoric picture of the situation, merely on the

grounds that its fitness cannot be strictly proved.

In a considerable number of cases logical thinking

brings us up to a certain point and then leaves us

in the lurch. . . .

Later on we shall try to adduce somesupport for the basic Vedantic vision, chiefly by

pointing out particular lines in modern thought

which converge upon it. Let us first be permitted

to sketch a concrete picture of an experience

which may lead towards it. In what follows, the

particular situation described at the beginning

could be replaced, equally fittingly, by any

other; it is merely meant as a reminder that this

is something that needs to be experienced, not

simply given a notional acknowledgement.Suppose you are sitting on a bench beside a

path in high mountain country. There are grassy

slopes all around, with rocks thrusting through

them; on the opposite slope of the valley there

is a stretch of scree with a low growth of alder

bushes. Woods climb steeply on both sides of

the valley, up to the line of treeless pasture;

and facing you, soaring up from the depths of

the valley, is the mighty, glacier-tipped peak, its

smooth snowfields and hard-edged rock-facestouched at this moment with soft rose-colour by

the last rays of the departing sun, all marvellously

i-vx,+E 1,2011


39/52

37i-vx,+E 1,2011

sharp against the clear, pale, transparent blue of

the sky.

According to our usual way of looking at

it, everything that you are seeing has, apart from

small changes, been there for thousands of years

before you. After a while not long you will no

longer exist, and the woods and rocks and skywill continue, unchanged, for thousands of years

after you.

What is it that has called you so suddenly

out of nothingness to enjoy for a brief while a

spectacle which remains quite indifferent to you?

The conditions for your existence are almost as

old as the rocks. For thousands of years men have

striven and suffered and begotten and women

have brought forth in pain. A hundred years ago,

perhaps, another man sat on this spot; like you

be gazed with awe and yearning in his heart at

the dying light on the glaciers. Like you he was

begotten of man and born of woman. He felt

pain and brief joy as you do. Was he someone

else? Was it not you yourself? What is this Self

of yours? What was the necessary condition

for making the thing conceived this time into

you, just you and not someone else? What

clearly intelligible scientific meaning can thissomeone else really have? If she who is now

your mother had cohabited with someone else

and had a son by him, and your father had done

likewise, would you have come to be? Or were

you living in them, and in your fathers father. .

. thousands of years ago? Looking and thinking

in that manner you may suddenly come to see,

in a flash, the profound rightness of the basic

conviction in Vedanta: it is not possible that this

unity of knowledge, feeling and choice whichyou call your own should have sprung into being

from nothingness at a given moment not so long

ago; rather this knowledge, feeling and choice

are essentially eternal and unchangeable and

numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive

beings. But not in this sense that you are a part,

a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect

or modification of it, as in Spinozas pantheism.

For we should then have the same baffling

question: which part, which aspect are you? what,

objectively, differentiates it from the others? No,but, inconceivable as it seems to ordinary reason,

you and all other conscious beings as such are all

in all. Hence this life of yours which you are living

is not merely a piece of the entire existence, but is

in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not

so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single

glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins

express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet

really so simple and so clear: Tat tvam asi, this is

you. Or, again, in such words as I am in the east

and in the west, I am below and above, I am this

whole world.

To grasp the basis of phenomena through

logical thought may in all probability

be impossible, since logical thought is

itself a part of phenomena, and wholly

involved in them.

Thus you can throw yourself flat on the

ground, stretched out upon Mother Earth, with

the certain conviction that you are one with her

and she with you. You are as firmly established,

as invulnerable as she. As surely as she will

engulf you tomorrow, so surely will she bring

you forth anew to new striving and suffering.

And not merely some day: now, today, every

day she is bringing you forth, not once but

thousands upon thousands of times, just as everyday she engulfs you a thousand times over. For

eternally and always there is only now, one and

the same now; the present is the only thing that

has no end.

The Vedantic Vision

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He

experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest a kind of optical

delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and

to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our

circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the wole nature in its beauty.Albert Einstine


40/52

38

During the Last [19th] Century, and part of

the one before, it was widely held that there was an

unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and

belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced

minds that it was time that belief should be

replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that

did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition,and as such had to be opposed. According to this

conception, the sole function of education was to

open the way to thinking and knowing, and the

school, as the outstanding organ for the peoples

education, must serve that end exclusively.

One will probably find but rarely, if at all,

the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such

crass form; for any sensible man would see at

once how one sided is such a statement of the

position. But it is just as well to state a thesis

starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up

ones mind as to its nature.

It is true that convictions can best be

supported with experience and clear thinking.

On this point one must agree unreservedly

with the extreme rationalist. The weak point

of his conception is, however, this, that those

convictions which are necessary and determinant

for our conduct and judgments, cannot be foundsolely along this solid scientific way.

For the scientific method can teach us

nothing else beyond how facts are related to,

and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration

toward such objective knowledge belongs to the

highest of which man is capable, and you will

certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle

the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in

this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge

of what is does not open the door directly to what

should be. One can have the clearest and most

complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be

Albert Einstein

(From an address to Princeton Theological Seminary in 1939)

(All italics are by the editor)

i-vx,+E 1,2011 38

During the Last [19th] Century, and part of

the one before, it was widely held that there was an

unreconcilableconflict between knowledge and

belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced

minds that it was time that belief should be

replacedincreasingly by knowledge;belief that

did not itselfrest on knowledge was superstition,and assuch had to be opposed. According to this

conception, the sole function of education was to

openthewayto thinkingand knowing, and the

school, as theoutstanding organfor the peoples

education, must serve thatend exclusively.

One willprobably find but rarely,if at all,

the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such

crass form; for any sensible man would see at

once how one sided is sucha statement of the

position. But it is just as well to state a thesis

starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up

ones mind as to its nature.

It is true that convictions can best be

supported with experience and clear thinking.

On this point one must agree unreservedly

with the extreme rationalist. The weak point

of his conception is, however, this, that those

onvictions which are necessary and determinant

for our conduct and judgments,cannotbe foundsolelyalongthis solid scientificway.

For the scientific method can teach us

nothing else beyond how facts are related to,

and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration

towardsuch objective knowledge belongs tothe

highest ofwhichman is capable, andyouwill

ertainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle

the achievementsandtheheroic efforts ofmanin

this sphere.Yetitis equally clear thatknowledge

ofwhat isdoes not openthedoor directlyto what

s ou e One can have theclearest and most

ompleteknowledgeof whatis,andyetnotbe

Albert Einstein

(From an address to Princeton Theological Seminary in 1939)

(All italics are by the editor)

i-vx +E 1,2011

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) needs no introduction. Regarded as the greatest scientist in the history

of the world, he, through his theories of special relativity and general relativity changed the very basic

concepts, such as those of space, time, matter and energy, that had been the foundations of looking at

the world by all men, including scientists. While remaining busy throughout his life with the fundamen-

tals of physics, he was also deeply engaged with the problems related to socio-political situation in the

world, religion, world peace, education and morals and ethics. The present piece has been taken from the

book Out of My Later Yearspublished by the Philosophical Library, New York)


41/52

39i-vx,+E 1,2011 39i-vx +E 1, 011

able to deduct from that what should be the goal

of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge

provides us with powerful instruments for the

achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate

goal itself and the longing to reach it must come

from another source. And it is hardly necessary

to argue for the view that our existence and ouractivity acquire meaning only by the setting up

of such a goal and of corresponding values. The

knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is

so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot

prove even the justification and the value of the

aspiration towards that very knowledge of truth.

Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely

rational conception of our existence.

But it must not be assumed that intelligent

thinking can play no part in the formation of the

goal and of ethical judgments. When someone

realizes that for the achievement of an end

certain means would be useful, the means itself

becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes

clear to us the interrelation of means and ends.

But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of

the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make

clear these fundamental ends and valuations,

and to set them fast in the emotional life ofthe individual, seems to me precisely the most

important function which religion has to perform

in the social life of man.And if one asks whence

derives the authority of such fundamental ends,

since they cannot be stated and justified merely

by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a

healthy society as powerful traditions, which act

upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments

of the individuals; they are there, that is, as

something living, without its being necessaryto find justification for their existence. They

come into being not through demonstration

but through revelation, through the medium of

powerful personalities. One must not attempt

to justify them, but rather to sense their nature

simply and clearly.

The highest principles for our aspirations

and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-

Christian religious tradition. It is a very high

goal which, with our weak powers, we can reachonly very inadequately, but which gives a sure

foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If

one were to take that goal out of its religious form

and look merely at its purely human side, one

might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible

development of the individual, so that he may

place his powers freely and gladly in the service

of all mankind.

There is no room in this for the divinizationof a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual.

Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in

religious language? Indeed, even the divinization

of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be

in the spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual

that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the

individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to

impose himself in any other way.

If one looks at the substance rather than

at the form, then one can take these words as

expressing also the fundamental democratic

position. The true democrat can worship his

nation as little as can the man who is religious,

in our sense of the term.

What, then, in all this, is the function of

education and of the school? They should help

the young person to grow up in such a spirit that

these fundamental principles should be to him as

the air which he breathes. Teaching alone cannotdo that.

If one holds these high principles clearly

before ones eyes, and compares them with

the life and spirit of our times, then it appears

glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at

present in grave danger. In the totalitarian states

it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to

destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened

parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as

the oppression of the individuals by economicmeans, which threaten to choke these most

precious traditions.

A realization of how great is the danger is

spreading, however, among thinking people, and

there is much search for means with which to

meet the danger-means in the field of national

and international politics, of legislation, of

organization in general. Such efforts are, no

doubt, greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew

something which we seem to have forgotten. Allmeans prove but a blunt instrument, if they have

not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing

Science and Religion


42/52

40

for the achievement of the goal is powerfully

alive within us, then shall we not lack the

strength to find the means for reaching the goal

and for translating it into deeds.

II

It would not be difficult to come to anagreement as to what we understand by science.

Science is the century-old endeavor to bring

together by means of systematic thought the

perceptible phenomena of this world into as

thorough-going an association as possible. To

put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior

reconstruction of existence by the process of

conceptualization. But when asking myself

what religion is I cannot think of the answer so

easily. And even after finding an answer which

may satisfy me at this particular moment I still

remain convinced that I can never under any

circumstances bring together, even to a slight

extent, all those who have given this question

serious consideration.

Atfirst, then, instead of asking what religion

is I should prefer to ask what characterizes

the aspirations of a person who gives me the

impression of being religious: A person whois religiously enlightened appears to me to be

one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated

himself from the fetters of his selfish desires

and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and

aspirations to which he clings because of their

super-personal value. It seems to me that what

is important is the force of this super-personal

content and the depth of the conviction concerning

its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of

whether any attempt is made to unite this contentwith a divine Being, for otherwise it would not

be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as

religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious

person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt

of the significance and loftiness of those super-

personal objects and goals which neither require

nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist

with the same necessity and matter of factness

as he himself. In this sense religion is the age

old endeavor of mankind to become clearly andcompletely conscious of these values and goals

and constantly to strengthen and extend their

effect. If one conceives of religion and science

according to these definitions then a conflict

between them appears impossible. For science

can only ascertain what is, but not what should

be, and outside of its domain value judgments

of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the

other hand, deals only with evaluations of humanthought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of

facts and relationships between facts. According

to this interpretation the well-known conflicts

between religion and science in the past must all

be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation

which has been described.

For example, a conflict arises when a

religious community insists on the absolute

truthfulness of all statements recorded in the

Bible. This means an intervention on the part

of religion into the sphere of science; this is

where the struggle of the Church against the

doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On

the other hand, representatives of science have

often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental

judgments with respect to values and ends on the

basis of scientific method, and in this way have

set themselves in opposition to religion. These

confl

icts have all sprung from fatal errors.Now, even though the realms of religion

and science in themselves are clearly marked off

from each other, nevertheless there exist between

the two strong reciprocal relationships and

dependencies. Though religion may be that which

determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned

from science, in the broadest sense, what means

will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has

set up. But science can only be created by those

who are thoroughly imbued with the aspirationtowards truth and understanding. This source

of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of

religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the

possibility that the regulations valid for the world

of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible

to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist

without that profound faith. The situation may be

expressed by an image: Science without religion

is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that intruth a legitimate conflict between religion

and science cannot exist I must nevertheless


i-vx,+E 1,2011


43/52

41i-vx,+E 1,2011

qualify this assertion once again on an essential

point, with reference to the actual content of

historical religions. This qualification has to do

with the concept of God. During the youthful

period of mankinds spiritual evolution

human fantasy created gods in mans own

image, who, by the operations of their willwere supposed to determine, or at any rate to

influence the phenomenal world. Man sought

to alter the disposition of these gods in his

own favor by means of magic and prayer. The

idea of God in the religions taught at present

is a sublimation of that old conception of the

gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown,

for instance, by the fact that men appeal to

the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the

fulfilment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea

of the existence of an omnipotent, just and

omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord

man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue

of its simplicity it is accessible to the most

undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there

are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea

in itself, which have been painfully felt since

the beginning of history. That is, if this being

is omnipotent then every occurrence, including

every human action, every human thought, and

every human feeling and aspiration is also His

work: how is it possible to think of holding

men responsible for their deeds and thoughts

before such an almighty Being? In giving out

punishment and rewards He would to a certain

extent be passing judgment on Himself. How

can this be combined with the goodness and

righteousness ascribed to Him?The main source of the present day conflicts

between the spheres of religion and of science

lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the

aim of science to establish general rules which

determine the reciprocal connection of objects

and events in time and space. For these rules,

or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is

requirednot proven. It is mainly a program, and

faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in

principle is only founded on partial successes.But hardly anyone could be found who would

deny these partial successes and ascribe them to

human self-deception. The fact that on the basis

of such laws we are able to predict the temporal

behaviour of phenomena in certain domains with

great precision and certainty is deeply embedded

in the consciousness of the modern man, even

though he may have grasped very little of the

contents of those laws. He need only consider thatplanetary courses within the solar system may be

calculated in advance with great exactitude on

the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a

similar way, though not with the same precision,

it is possible to calculate in advance the mode

of operation of an electric motor, a transmission

system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when

dealing with a novel development.

To be sure, when the number of factors

coming into play in a phenomenological complex

is too large scientific method in most cases fails

us. One need only think of the weather, in which

case prediction even for a few days ahead is

impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we

are confronted with a causal connection whose

causal components are in the main known to

us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the

reach of exact prediction because of the variety

of factors in operation, not because of any lackof order in nature.

We have penetrated far less deeply into the

regularities obtaining within the realm of living

things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense

at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only

think of the systematic order in heredity, and in

the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on

the behaviour of organic beings. What is still

lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound

generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.The more a man is imbued with the ordered

regularity of all events the firmer becomes his

conviction that there is no room left by the side

of this ordered regularity for causes of a different

nature. For him neither the rule of human nor

the rule of divine will exists as an independent

cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine

of a personal God interfering with natural events

could never be refuted, in the real sense, by

science, for this doctrine can always take refugein those domains in which scientific knowledge

has not yet been able to set foot.



44/52

42

But I am persuaded that such behavior on

the part of the representatives of religion would

not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine

which is able to maintain itself not in clear light

but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its

effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to

human progress.In their struggle for the ethicalgood, teachers of religion must have the stature

to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is,

give up that source of fear and hope which in the

past placed such

vast power in the

hands of priests.

In their labors

they will have to

avail themselves

of those forces

which are capable

of cultivating the

Good, the True,

and the Beautiful

in humanity itslef.

This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an

incomparably more worthy task. After religious

teachers accomplish the refining process

indicated they will surely recognize with joy thattrue religion has been ennobled and made more

profound by scientific knowledge.

If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate

mankind as far as possible from the bondage of

egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific

reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense.

Although it is true that it is the goal of science

to discover rules which permit the association

and foretelling of facts, this is not its only

aim. It also seeks to reduce the connectionsdiscovered to the smallest possible number of

mutually independent conceptual elements. It is

in this striving after the rational unification of the

manifold that it encounters its greatest successes,

even though it is precisely this attempt which

causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to

illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense

experience of successful advances made in thisdomain, is moved by profound reverence for the

rationality made manifest in existence. By way

of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching

emancipation from

the shackles of

personal hopes

and desires, and

thereby attains that

humble attitude

of mind towards

the grandeur of

reason incarnate

in existence,

and which, in its

profoundest depths,

is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however,

appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense

of the word. And so it seems to me that science

not only purifies the religious impulse of the drossof its anthropomorphism but also contributes to

a religious spiritualization of our understanding

of life.

The further the spiritual evolution of

mankind advances, the more certain it seems to

me that the path to genuine religiosity does not

lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death,

and blind faith, but through striving after rational

knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest

must become a teacher if he wishes to do justiceto his lofty educational mission.

For science can only ascertain what is, but not what

should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of

all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand,

deals only with evaluations of human thought and action:

it cannot justifi

ably speak of facts and relationshipsbetween facts. According to this interpretation the well-

known conflicts between religion and science in the

past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the

situation which has been described.

For science can only ascertain what is, but not what

should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of

all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand,

deals only with evaluations of human thought and action:

t cannot justifi

ably speak of facts and relationshipsbetween facts. According to this interpretation the well-

nown conflicts between religion and science in the

past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the

situation which has been described.

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give

up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the

past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail

themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the

Beautiful in humanity itslef.


In thei g or the ethical good, teachersof religionmus a e t e tatureto give

up doc e n G ,t at i , p t ur of opewhichin the

s wer i t e an ri . i wi have toavai

o r are l f i d h True, and t

e i it s .

i-vx,+E 1,2011


45/52

43i-vx,+E 1,2011

Ei {` 3Y{i: S {`E Ei EP { +{x+{ Ei JxE B {

i E M * i {xV{x i SE Mi v E l* EU n V{x E jE Mx M E i SE { ZxE B EiVxx +E * { EV{x j E V{x E v Ei JxE Bi E M* V{x


46/52

44

3.1 . Ei Y+E { E|i{nEEi* |i{nE C |H xY E +M-+M H+ Sx { xB Vi, Vx{nEi* C{nE |Mi , |i{nE E x* =nh E B E n |i{nE VE:, E +Ex+n {n xi VxE C|M i * Ei ix M + ix Sx i*xn Y+E n M i , {M + jM* Ei


47/52

45i-vx,+E 1,2011

Ei {`-3

3.4 . ` H E |M n Y+ xE S v nJxE B i , (V-E Sj--E E Sj)* ={H ix |E E Y+E ` H { xxJi :

BESx uSx Sx{M E E: ExjM E: E: Exx{. M x x: xx

]{{h:+vxE EhCnE |M EixE B |:EEn E |M i* H + EE EU +i * E-E BE H E |M BE +vE EEE B,+ BE EE E B BE +vE HE |M i * CE ] i { BE H E|M BE EE EixE B i


48/52

46

Ei {`-3

3.9 . v { E xE x x n*


49/52

47i-vx,+E 1,2011

Ei {`-3

,

,

, -

,

,

, -

Te Sanskrit language is of a wonderful structure; more perfect thanthe Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely renedthan either.

William Jones

+E =k3.5 1. cE E {iE* 2. cE E * 3. t E Uj* 4. x E {c* 5. {iE E Sj*6. {iEE {`* 7. t E +v{E* 8. (n) cEE {iE* 9. M E cE* 10. {cE {k* 11. E * 12. {cE * 13. E vM* 14. Sc E Sj* 15.


50/52

48i-vx,+E 1,2011

x VB +{ E Bn {S ViVE M x xiE n+nSi* =xEU Ein+ nix i, EU Ei{S, +EUE Sn+ni i* EU B VEiE + E E x{i E n+ nEixi*


51/52

,

, , , ,

- , , , , ,

-

() 20 .

240 .

350 .

100 .

(...) 400 .

600 .

() 30

, 50 .

,

,

,

.-

-, -56 , 110017. 011-41764317


52/52

n+{ nE E + iE E i SE

Documents

Bharat Sandhaan Issue 1