Ethics

A very neat definition (or so I thought) of ethics that Hamid gave the other day:

An ethical code, he said, is a statement about three things -

1. A view of reality or the world
2. An objective/goal within that world-view
3. A set of rules for achieving that objective within the framework of the world-view

I thought it was very interesting that we often associate ethics with only the third statement, while it really is the result of the first two as well. Therefore, oftentimes when we find ourselves at odds with someone on an ethical matter, it is not because we just arbitrarily have different rules, but because we have different views of reality and/or different objective functions.

Definitely seemed like food for thought...

God - the unknowable essence

One of the points brought up in Steven's talk last week, that I'd like to elaborate on now, is the Baha'i notion of God being an "unknowable essence". I've spoken a little about this in a much earlier post (here) in the context of anthropomorphism, but let's review that once again here and then look at some of the deeper implications of this notion.

Historically speaking, most world religions have developed some picture(s) of God in some form - be it the very human forms of the Greek gods, the multi-headed/armed Gods of Hinduism, or the old, father-like figure of Christianity. My own personal understanding of these images is that they are quite symbolic, and represent the level of maturity and understanding of humanity at different stages of evolution. Some of these images have been formed to personify some attribute of God's, so that the common man has a concrete figurehead to direct his prayers at. Some others have been created, in my opinion, by the clergy of a particular religion, in order to maintain a stronger hold over the people and their beliefs. An image of God can be at most, I believe, a starting point - some sort of placeholder for what we ultimately can never completely comprehend. Unfortunately, these images have ended up becoming much larger than life, and the source of conflict and dissension amongst the peoples of the world.

The Baha'i concept of God begins with the realization that God is unknowable. Whatever God really is like, whatever his form is, whatever his essence is - we, as finite, limited, imperfect beings, can never know it. In theory, this makes a lot of sense to me - after all, if I could completely comprehend what God is, wouldn't that make me greater than Him? Baha'u'llah teaches:

"How wondrous is the unity of the Living, the Ever-Abiding God--a unity which is exalted above all limitations, that transcendeth the comprehension of all created things.... How lofty hath been His incorruptible Essence, how completely independent of the knowledge of all created things, and how immensely exalted will it remain above the praise of all the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth!"

But why can I not know even a part of what God's essence is? What if his essence is limitless - but we could know some of it (never all of it) in our quest for the truth? I've struggled with this question for a while, but I think some of Steven's ideas helped clear the waters a little for me, and made me get at least a glimpse of why this might be the case.

The Baha'i idea of God is of one who is “sanctified above all attributes” - and this includes even concepts taken for granted, such as existence, age, temporality etc. In essence (however hard this might sound), we have to stop thinking of God as a "being" - and this is a theme common to all previous notions of God, where God is considered an omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely powerful being. We have to transcend such a notion of God, and realize that even talking about knowing something about the essence of God, about the nature of his existence is meaningless - for he is really above anything we can ever talk about or comprehend. As Abdu'l Baha says:

"Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities; otherwise, it is unknown and hidden.

As our knowledge of things, even of created and limited things, is knowledge of their qualities and not of their essence, how is it possible to comprehend in its essence the Divine Reality, which is unlimited? ... Knowing God, therefore, means the comprehension and the knowledge of His attributes, and not of His Reality. This knowledge of the attributes is also proportioned to the capacity and power of man; it is not absolute."

If we actually think a little about what it says in the quote above, we realize that even with mundane things, what we largely know is just qualities of things. And the simpler a thing is, the more accurately do its perceivable qualities reflect its essence. At the level of human beings, and even animals, we start seeing a huge discontinuity between what we can know of the being's qualities, and what the being essentially is, thinks and believes. Clearly, therefore, we should not expect to understand God's essence, when we can't even understand that of those closest to us.

Now what are the implications of such a world-view? First, it tells us why we can never really prove the existence of God categorically, and why traditional proofs of God are all incomplete - for they all attempt to prove the existence of God, the being.

Second, it makes quite clear that any image of God - anthropomorphic or otherwise - is only a model, and like all models, is possibly useful in some ways, but essentially incorrect.

Third, it of course begs the question - if we can't ever know God, if he is forever beyond our understanding, why bother with anything? Why bother praying, why bother trying to understand the world, why bother with spiritual growth? The answer to this can be found at the end of the previous quote by Abdu'l Baha - though we cannot have direct knowledge of God's essence, we can have knowledge of the attributes and qualities of God. Bahá'u'lláh wrote that everything in creation is God's handiwork and therefore reflects something of His attributes, albeit to an imperfect degree. The more refined an object, the more completely it is capable of reflecting God's qualities. And the highest degree of perfection that be attained on this mortal realm is that attained by the Manifestations of God, who Baha'u'llah says are "of all men, the most accomplished, the most distinguished, and the most excellent". Therefore it is in the lives and character of these various Prophets, these Manifestations, that we humans can find the closest reflection of the qualities of God. These Prophets therefore are to be revered and exalted above all other humans not because any of them is himself God (as a lot of us tend to believe) - but because they are, to us, the closest we'll ever see anyone to God. It is like looking at the reflection of the sun in a mirror - we all have mirrors that reflect the divine Sun to some extent, but our mirrors are all mostly dusty. The Manifestations of God, on the other hand, have these perfect, clean mirrors, and reflect the Sun in its purest form. And yet they themselves are eternally different from the Sun itself. Baha'u'llah writes:

"The door of the knowledge of the Ancient Being [God] hath ever been, and will continue to be, closed in the face of men. No man's understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court. As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Day Stars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self."

So where does this leave us? First, we need to try and shed our preconceived notions of God as a being, and the nature of His form, and accept, once and for all, that we can never know Him in his essence. Therefore, let's all stop fighting over whether God is Jesus or Vishnu or Allah. Second, let's learn to make the distinction between God and his Manifestations, and understand the essential relationship between them - which is that the Manifestation of God reflects the qualities of God to the maximum degree of perfection achievable and perceivable on the mortal realm. Third, let's learn of our own relationship with these Manifestations - which is that these Manifestations represent, to us, the only way of getting a glimpse of the attributes of God, and a degree of self-perfection to which we need to aspire. Fourth, it would be ideal if we could actually be in the presence of such a Manifestation and study these qualities for ourselves. But as we cannot, the next best thing is to study the teachings and writings of the Manifestation. From our perspective, the word of the Manifestation is the Word of God, and it is to this Word that the individual can turn in his or her daily life in order to grow closer to God and to acquire a deeper knowledge of Him. This process of turning towards God can be likened to the process of polishing our own mirrors so as to be able to reflect that Sun ever so slightly better - and this, I believe, can be achieved through a transformation in our thoughts and actions, prayer, acquiring the ability to love our fellow beings and transcending our lower selves to the extent possible.

A blessing for the journey

A very beautiful prayer that was recited at the Multi-faith welcome to the new freshmen at Stanford yesterday:

Holy Wisdom, in whose many names we gather, be our teacher.

Teach us to seek you beyond and beneath all the knowledge we pursue. In a world flooded with information and parched for justice, guide our learning, our teaching, our living with courageous loving. Train us to see and embrace those we too often overlook, those from whom our books may shield us: the outcast, the poor, the forgotten. Shape our hearts as surely as our minds around the common good, and help us to discover what is most good in all that is most common.

Holy Wisdom, be our teacher.

Teach us the wisdom of generosity - the simple kindness to make room in our lives for new friends, new colleagues, new students, new teachers; and give us the extravagant simplicity to know we need them as much as they need us. Make us perceptive enough to recognize the loneliness around or within us, strong enough to name it, and gentle enough to ease it. And grant us generosity of intellect - to inhabit our doubts long enough to befriend and follow theml to listen to those with whom we disagree long enough to learn from them.

Holy Wisdom, be our teacher.

Teach us the wisdom of humor and humility - the freedom to take ourselves lightly and the courage to live slowly and simply as though our worth did not finally depend on our work, because it doesn't. May we remember this year that life is brief, so let our kindness be swift and our perspective be broad.

Holy wisdom be planted deep within us and scattered wide among us, so that when the rains have come and gone, and the daylight stretches again to its full length, we may be found at the far end of this new year flowering with humanity, mercy, friendship and wisdom. Amen.

The new atheism

Sunday's talk by Dr.Steven Phelps left a deep impression in my mind. There is still a lot I'm processing, and trying to organize in my head, but I wanted to quickly jot down the major points he made, some of which I'll discuss later in subsequent posts. But I wanted to put this down before I forgot the details :)

Steven started out by outlining the nature of the phenomenon of New Atheism (as propounded by thinkers such as Richard Dawkins), and the two pronged attack it launched on the foundations of religion - by questioning the existence of God, and by questioning the need for organized religion. The arguments presented in Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, calling into question the existence of God include rational and logical refutations of some traditional arguments for the existence of God, such as the teleological, ontological, modern design argument etc. In terms of organized religion, atheists have, as Steven said, a field day, what with all the ills we currently see in society that are directly caused by fundamentalist and fanatical religious groups. Dawkins uses these arguments, combined with an evolutionary explanation of morality and the religious impulse, to repudiate the claim that religion is a necessary component of life.

Steven then went on to mention some of the responses theists had given to the questions posed by Dawkins and others. Some of these are:

• That the atheists aren't really being fair, because the ill effects of religion are caused by extremists, and not the average religious person


• That the positive effects of religion, such as moral qualities, goodness etc, are far more subtle and pervasive - and so less striking - than the ill-effects, and that these positive effects are essentially less newsworthy


• That we should not judge past religious laws by today's moral standards

There were a couple of others which I've forgotten, but the point Steven tried to make was that though all these arguments were right in their own place, all they served to do, really, was blunt the onslaught of atheism - but none really came out as a ringing endorsement of God and religion.

The second half of his talk was focused on the Baha'i perspective on these ideas, and how as a Baha'i, he found himself agreeing with all the arguments present by the new atheists - and yet disagreeing with their conclusions. These ideas throw the whole concept of God and religion in a new light, and make it possible to resolve the issues raised as problems by the new atheists. Again, i'll just summarize some of the ideas he threw out, without going into them in detail - and hopefully I won't miss any of them.

From the Baha'i perspective

• All religious/spiritual beliefs have to have a basis in rationality - one must make a commitment to this. As Abdul Baha says, "Religion must conform to science and reason; otherwise, it is superstition"


• God ceases to be viewed as this supernatural being that has the power and choice to intervene in the world He created. Bahá’u’lláh describes God as an “unknowable essence,” “sanctified above all attributes,” and “exalted beyond and above proximity and remoteness.” He is not a being in the sense we traditionally view a being, and therefore questions such as "Why is there suffering if God is omnipotent and benevolent?" have no real meaning. The true nature of God is one we'll never understand - so let's not even try :) From this perspective, it is therefore totally true that traditional proofs of the existence of God aren't convincing, for they all try to prove the existence of God, the being.


• The non-existence of the proof of something's existence does not imply its falsity - or in other words, not being able to prove God exists in a rigorously scientific way (as we know science today) does not in any way prove the falsity of the claim that He exists.


• God's essence being unknown does not mean that we can never know anything about Him - for His will and actions take the form of nature. Natural laws, including evolution, are all an extension of God's will.


• Baha'u'llah defines religion as the essential connections and necessary relationships which proceed from the realities of things. Interestingly, nature is given the exact same definition. As is science. Therefore the Baha'i view really encompasses nature/science and religion as one under its fold, instead of viewing them as distinct entities. The attempt is to move from a dichotomous view of science and religion to one where both are viewed as essentially describing the same thing.


• Religious truth is relative, not absolute, and divine revelation is progressive, not permanent. Context is very important. Religion and revelation, therefore, are also evolutionary, and contingent on the state of humanity and society at any point in time. There is a cyclic nature to religious evolution, much like the seasons of the year - and therefore there needs to be constant renewal and rejuvenation through new Manifestations.


• The Manifestations of God, who seem to come up in society at distinct points of time and prescribe seemingly arbitrary teachings are not really arbitrary, but rather a result of the very same, evolving natural order of things. A Manifestation is like "an all-knowing physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind, He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require." It is from these physicians that we get our concepts of morality that we hold so dear today, and which we can, in fact, separate from their original source (see my earlier post).


• The critical need of the day is unity, and though the situation might look bleak now, the end of winter is not far - and tiny shoots are starting to emerge through the frost, signaling the advent of a spiritual springtime.


• An atheistic framework can be self-consistent in itself - therefore there is no objective reason why one should choose to believe in the above framework over an atheistic one. There are only two reasons why one might do so - because there is a feeling of the sublime (in a very Kantian sense) that is aroused in one when one encounters the writings and teachings of these great teachers, and because of the effect of implementing these teachings not just on ourselves but also on the people around us. This is of course subjective to an extent, and therefore is something that cannot be argued beyond a point.

An example he gave of the effect of the sublime, and its dependence on context is described in this experiment carried out by the Washington Post.

Adding to that last point, I'd like to say that the only reason why I'd want to make that leap of faith is due to the existence of these Manifestations, who I believe to be qualitatively different from the rest of humanity, and possessing a remarkably deep insight into reality. And it is the potency of their teachings, the circumstances in which they come up, and their vision for the future - all combined with a firm belief in the existence of God - that enable me to take that initial leap of faith. A more detailed description of this idea can be found here.

In summary, the ideas above, Steven believed (as do I) enable us to resolve a lot of the apparent contradictions that exist between science and religion today, and hope for a future where our understanding of both would evolve to a point where the distinction between the two gets blurred beyond recognition. Considering human progress in the last 5000 years, and extrapolating this to another 5 billion years in the future (the expected lifetime of the sun, and hopefully our planet), the possibilities of where our knowledge could extend to are indeed staggering.

The source of morality

A long conversation with a friend over the weekend brought up several interesting issues. One, in particular, revolved around the source of our morality. The thread began with a consideration of what I would do if I were completely convinced that there was no eternal human soul, that once I died at the end of this life on earth there was nothing beyond - if, in other words, I were convinced that this material world was all there was, and that I had just this one life here to do whatever I could.

Now in my opinion, if i truly believed that, the only logical thing to do would be to not exhibit qualities such as goodness, kindness, or any values beyond what was profitable to me in a purely hedonistic way. All I would do would be to try and maximize my material happiness in the course of this life, and not worry about other human beings, about the future of the world, future generations etc. Seems brutally selfish, doesn't it? And kind of unreal - after all, couldn't it be argued that there is something inherent in us that makes us want to do good? That would push us to be moral even if one didn't have to think of how it affected the development of an "eternal soul" beyond this life? Yes, it could be argued as such - in fact, we only need to look around us to realize this is true. For there are a lot of people in this world who are good, nice, moral people - but have no belief in God or a transcendent reality whatsoever. So surely we don't need God to be moral?

On the surface of it, no. But let's take a closer look? Where did all these people get their values from? Probably from their parents, and the social conditions prevailing around them. Where'd their parents get their values from? From their parents. And so on. And so the morals I hold today are not necessarily just linked to the person I am, but also to my entire history, and the history of society. And the origins of these morals in history - and here's where I throw in my $0.02 - I contend, can be found in the teachings of the Manifestations of God over the ages. It is these teachings, I believe, that have propelled society to an understanding of these morals and values, to a point where today, these values can be taken for granted and separated from their original source almost completely. To a point where today we naturally feel "good" when we exemplify these virtues, without necessarily being aware of the source of that feeling.

Is there any way to prove this? Of course not :) But it does give me a way to explain the development of qualities such as love, kindness, faith, trust, generosity, humility and so on, many of which seem unnecessary, and even harmful from an evolutionary point of view. And it gives me a reason for what might prompt a human being to choose to commit actions that might seem detrimental to his material well-being - because they do help him progress spiritually.

An atheistic view in many cases, therefore, cannot really be separated from the theism that has engendered those views in the first place. By the time we grow up and are mature enough to think about these things, and decide we have our own views on them, our nature and our beliefs have already been formed by many external influences - some of which come down to us from over the ages. And it is necessary, in my opinion, to be aware of the presence of these influences before we attribute our morality to any particular source.

Something to check out

The people at Niras - the consultancy in Denmark that hosted the essay competition last year - have started a few blogs to get people talking about some of the issues of today. One of them is in English, and is being edited by Sergio Fox, whom I'd met when I was there - he is quite a philosopher, and has tried to have a different take on the issue the blog caters to - health. Do check it out:

http://blogs.niras.dk/healthandhouses/2007/09/06/hello-world/

Living in a state of prayer

We often think of prayer as a set of words to be chanted, often in times of need or distress. Typically, even when said/chanted on a more regular basis, the act of reciting a prayer tends to be rather perfunctory (I have definitely been guilty of this). In addition, once the act of saying a prayer has been concluded, life goes back to normal, and we continue with our daily routine as if nothing had happened. Such a dichotomous lifestyle description will definitely ring a bell in many of our minds - it definitely sounds alarmingly familiar to me. However, as I continue to study the Baha'i writings, I'm starting to gain a deeper appreciation of the concept of living in a state of prayer, and what it really means.

The Baha'i teachings talk of prayer as a loving conversation with God. The two key words here are "loving" and "conversation". Abdu'l Baha says: "In the highest prayer, men pray only for the love of God, not because they fear Him or hell, or hope for bounty or heaven..." The message here is very clear - prayers are not to be said as a duty, or as a demand for some kind of gratification. A prayer has one and only one purpose - to express our love for God. Again, in the words of Abdu'l Baha - "...God knows the wishes of all hearts; but the impulse to pray is a natural one, springing from man's love to God". As this quote points out, by definition of God as an omniscient being, He already knows our needs/desires/sorrows, and so there is no need to communicate them through our prayers. The purpose of a prayer, then clearly rises above such concerns.

The second aspect of a prayer is that of a conversation with God - this isn't a one way street, though it often might seem that way. The effects are rather subtle, and so often not perceived. Over a sustained period of time, prayer opens out our doors to receiving the light of God, by cultivating in us the very spiritual qualities that reflect the attributes of God. But the Baha'i teachings also talk about an even more incredible phenomenon - the effect our prayers have not just on our soul, but on others as well. Says Baha'u'llah: "Whoso reciteth the verses revealed by God, the scattering angels of the Almighty shall scatter abroad the fragrance of the words uttered by his mouth, and shall cause the heart of every righteous man to throb." There is so much that I could say about this quote that I won't even get into it :) - but just sit back for a moment, relax, set your mind free, and conjure up the image this quote projects.

The final aspect of prayer I'd like to talk about is the elimination of our typically schizophrenic and dichotomous lives. The Baha'i writings talk about "living in a state of prayer". Now what does this mean? Does it mean constantly reciting prayers 24/7? Even a superficial understanding of this concept would tell us that there has to be more to it. What we really need to do is develop the attitude that comes with saying a prayer, and apply it to all aspects of our life - that of being in a state of supplication to God, of developing the spiritual qualities that reflect his attributes, of cultivating our Higher self, and bringing all this out in every interaction we have with the world and its beings. This sounds like a pretty lofty goal, of course - and so achieving this state of prayer is really a continual process, one which we slowly progress towards. Prayer, therefore, is not something that exists in a part of our daily life - instead, the concept of prayer becomes much more integrated with the entire process of our spiritual growth.

I'll leave you with the following words from Abdu'l Baha to meditate on:

"There is nothing sweeter in the world of existence than prayer. Man must live in a state of prayer. The most blessed condition is the condition of prayer and supplication. Prayer is conversation with God. The greatest attainment or the sweetest state is none other than conversation with God. It creates spirituality, creates mindfulness and celestial feelings, begets new attractions of the Kingdom and engenders the susceptibilities of the higher intelligence."

Be the change

I've been thinking a lot recently about the consequences of our choices. Most of us would be willing to accept that our choices and decisions have consequences that continue to affect us beyond just the immediate future. However what I've been thinking more about are some of the subtler effects of our choices and actions - on our surroundings, community and society.

I think the fundamental realization that led me to the conclusions I shall describe below, is the fact that society is made up of a number of individuals - of which I am one. Now I know that sounded very obvious and almost trivial - but lets unpack that a little more.

What does it mean to say that I am part of a society that consists of many more individuals like me? Well firstly, it means that I am not the center of the universe, and there exist people just as important as me in society. So I should not make decisions based on reasons that center around just me - will it make me happy, will it make me rich... Second, any crossroads I find myself at, other people probably have found themselves at. In fact, any choice I'm faced with today is probably faced by many other people without my knowledge - what career to pursue, whether to marry the person I love - you name it. So decisions aren't taken in isolation. Third, any choice you make sends a message out to the people around you, your family, your friends, your children, and influences the way they think. Fourth (and this is important), when people en masse take certain kinds of decisions, it creates the fabric and nature of the ideals of society of that time.

We often look at society today and say - this is the way it is, I can't change things. But I wonder how many of us pause to think about how society evolved to be what it is today. Let's take an example. Fifty years ago in India, most marriages were arranged between families. The concept of a love marriage was almost unheard of. Likewise, intercaste and inter-religious marriages were almost taboo. Today, however, things have changed significantly - a lot of people choose to marry each other not because their parents urge them to, but because they fundamentally feel a spiritual bond between them. Inter-community and inter-faith marriages are becoming increasingly more common. There are of course many sections of society that still hold on to the old beliefs - but attitudes are definitely changing. So how did we get here? Did we all wake up one fine day and decide that we'd be accepting of certain things that we didn't believe in the previous day? Or is the state of society today the painstaking result of thousands of choices people made over the last fifty years that slowly, subtly, but surely shifted the balance of society from one where, say 99% of the people did not believe in a love marriage to one where 50% of them do?

Too often do we dismiss the power of our choices - what, we ask, can one person do? What effect can my choices have on a society made of a billion people? But think of those thousands who did choose to go against the grain of society - what if each one of them had paused to think the same, and decided to do otherwise? Would we be where we are today?

The situation is not unlike the prisoner's dilemma - just like you need to project your own choice onto the prisoner on the other side of your jail-room walls, it requires you to put yourself in the shoes of every other person on the planet, and wonder what would happen if they all made the choice you are considering making. Where would the world go from there? What is the consequence of me, today, deciding to work in a company that manufactures guns? What is the consequence of me, today, deciding to drive an SUV when i'm single and don't really need one? What is the consequence of me, today, deciding to give up on my love for a Muslim girl and marry the girl my parents choose? Each of those choices might not really affect my happiness in the long run - I might earn a lot of money, drive around in a safe car, and grow, over time, to love my wife. Human beings are remarkably adaptive, and can learn to be happy in most situations. But what effects do those choices have external to me? How do they affect the fabric of society? And what do the people around me, my children, my grandchildren, the people who look up to me, learn from the choices they see me making?

We all have, I believe, a fundamental responsibility to ourselves and our families - but at the same time, we also have a subtler responsibility to society. Not just in a superficial way, but in every interaction we have with elements of the world around us. And each of those interactions need to, to the extent possible, reflect what we believe to be good, true and right. Ultimately, we all need to, as Mahatma Gandhi said, be the change we wish to see in the world - for each of us is a part of it.