Social Consciousness: Investigating God

Fortunately, or unfortunately, God is always relevant in human society, fortunately, because of the idea of God keeping most humans within healthy ethical boundaries, unfortunately, because the same idea is dividing large chunks of people, leading to violence and distress.

There are two ways of knowing God. First, go to a man of religion and ask him. He gives the total description of God, the dress he wears, the ornaments he wears, his location, and his birth star. Different Godmen may say different things. We must believe in it. The second way is to think and know for ourselves. The first one is belief, and the second is a rational enquiry.

Both strands are seen in human history. When we try to investigate the nature of God, the basic level is to visualise them in a human form with a name and some functions. Having a form is called saakara, and having functions is called saguna. This is what a religion does. Many forms can be valid because they instill ethical discipline in the followers. It does not matter whether Rama tells, follows the truth’, Shiva tells, or Durga tells. Problems may arise when they tell contradictory things.

A slightly intelligent person will question the above and ask, ‘How can God have a form?’ He examines the vast universe with stars and galaxies and presents the idea of a formless god. Yet he visualises a god with certain functions like creating the universe, controlling the universe, etc., while seated in exalted heaven. He is the one who creates, regulates, rewards and punishes the wrongdoers. This level is the ‘formless’ (niraakaara) but with all functions (saguna). Even here, when we say that God sits in heaven, we are confining him to a location named heaven. We are forever his servants, obeying his commands. Even at this level, there is a network of beliefs.

A more scientific way is to investigate. Our mind is the only tool to examine the external universe. To investigate God, we have the same tool. We must examine the examiner first. It is like a computer program trying to know the programmer’s nature. When we start this, we find our personality in different layers. There is the physical body, with blood, bones, flesh, and such. We have the life force, prana, which is a subtler level. Subtler than that are our cognitive faculties, senses, and the mind. Subtler than that is the idea of self, the ego. We know that we exist, and we think. We realise that there are two essential things, existence and intelligence. But we have our limited selves, seeking support and happiness from external objects to sustain ourselves. This is true for all living beings.

There must be an unlimited fountain for this existence and intelligence from which all bodies (human and all beings) emanate. After great debates, the Indian philosophers postulated it as ‘infinitely existing consciousness’, as I noted in an earlier article. This is not a God in the conventional sense; hence, it is called the Supreme Reality. It is this, which manifests in the universe, and as all the beings in the universe. There is a problem with using a pronoun for this Reality. It is not he or she, and hence we call it ‘It’. It has no form or function and hence is called nirakara and nirguna. It is not a person seated on a heavenly throne but an impersonal entity dwelling in all beings in the universe. In this reality, we visualise different forms and make them our rulers. Shankaracharya, in his poem ‘Manisha Panchakam’ says boldly, ‘even God is my visualisation’.

With this understanding, whom can we hate? Whom can we call a non-believer? Which God can we discard? All god forms are useful at a practical level. The Indian philosophers say, ‘use them all and try to go beyond them to realise the truth and see divinity in all’.

(Writer is former DGP, Andhra Pradesh)