At the outset, let me state that I am myself of student of ancient Indian spiritual thought. Any views given below which may be erroneous/ misleading are therefore fully mine and not that of the ancient Indian thought. The paper is presented in a Q&A form and is meant as a primer for someone who has limited understanding of the core tenets behind Indian thought. Effort has been made to focus on the core tenets and not external visible aspects (Temples, Vegetarianism, Yoga, etc) which, though important, are offshoots or practical outcomes that have arisen from the core tenets. Further, Indian thought is a vast ocean and attempt has been made to keep the dialogue simple rather than get into deeper ideas but if this appeals to you, there are sources from where one can tap deeper into further layers of Indian thought.

1. Does Indian thought have the idea of a GOD?

God or ULTIMATE is very much part of Indian thought and represents the subtlest particle from which the whole Universe has sprung about. Various terminologies have been used to describe this concept and while some descriptions make GOD very personal, some make this impersonal also. There is however a broad agreement that there is indeed a very subtle particle that binds the whole Universe together and this subtle particle may therefore be referred to as GOD. This ULTIMATE has three core properties – it is EXISTENCE (meaning it really exists), it is CONSCIOUS (meaning that it is aware of itself) and BLISS (meaning that it is conscious of itself in a state of absolute joy or bliss) and it manifests in the form of LOVE to all.

2. Is there anything else besides the ULTIMATE?

The ULTIMATE is all there was, there is and there will be. There is nothing else anywhere besides the ULTIMATE. Indian thought gives a name for this – it is BRAHMAN.

3. If BRAHMAN is all there is, how did the world come about?

This question is actually being put up by someone limited like us. Equally, this limited I am attempting to answer this question. The real answer is – this is inexplicable. This is because firstly, we cannot imagine a state where there is only ULTIMATE. When we say that the ULTIMATE is alone our imagination gives an idea that there is someone in the room all alone and there is no one outside the room. We have an imagination of a room or a location and the ULTIMATE brooding singly. However, this duality inherent in our thinking is not how the original state of ULTIMATE needs to be understood. This is a state beyond time and space where ULTIMATE is all there is. And it is having attributes described in “a” above.

4. This does not answer the question how did the world come about?

My humble response is that our minds are not developed suitably to answer this since our imagination is very limiting and misdirected. We are not ready or our mind has not been prepared to receive the answer.

5. This is unfair – I am reasonably smart person; I demand an answer.

OK, if you say so!!! The ULTIMATE desired.

6. What did the ULTIMATE desire?

Desire for us limited human beings always means something that seeks something else that is not present with it. Desire is external looking for normal humans. Such desire cannot however be the desire of the ULTIMATE since there is nothing external beyond the ULTIMATE. Besides, the ULTIMATE is already in a state of BLISS and an entity desiring when it is indeed complete and in a state of BLISS cannot be understood by us limited humans.

7. Cut the crap!!!! What did the ULTIMATE desire?

As I have stated, this desire is difficult to understand or appreciate. Nevertheless, we can state that the ULTIMATE desired to know ITSELF. It desired to know its real state. Since it did not know any other state other than the state of BLISSFUL COMPLETENESS, it possibly wanted to better appreciate the meaning of this true original state. This is the desire. So what did it do? It therefore created conditions where it will experience something other than the experience of its true original state. Therefore, to really KNOW its own true state of E, C and B (described in “1” above), it actually created a platform to experience what it is not.

8. Why should BRAHMAN do such a thing?

All I can say is that you are seeking an explanation and I have given a working idea that can be considered a close approximation to the truth that our limited mind can empathize with. This working theory has helped people for thousands of years and helped understand or reach the state of BRAHMAN. Just like you do not know how a car runs but still drive a car and reach your destination, it is impossible for a limited mind to understand the truth since the mind is not equipped the know the truth. Hence, I have given a working idea. Using this idea, live life in a disciplined way, meditate, introspect, etc and over a period of time, through the grace of the ULTIMATE, you will get closer to the truth.

9. You mentioned earlier that ULTIMATE created a platform to experience reality. Can you expand further?

The term used to describe this platform is PRAKRITI. This PRAKRITI is dynamic, has certain innate characteristics like placidity, dynamic activitism as well as a state of lightness and these modes or attributes are called as GUNAS. BRAHMAN died (meaning BRAHMAN gave up its original state and entered PRAKRITI) and formed a unique body known as VIRAT. One must however also note a contrary idea that BRAHMAN can never die in the way we understand death (the word is used in a mystical sense in one of the spiritual writings). Also, even though Brahman gave up its original state, Brahman retains its original essence simultaneously – a very crude example will be that even though you are working in office, if you decide to play football, your action to play football does not change your status of being a man, an office staff, a husband, etc. Brahman remains while Brahman also enters PRAKRITI. This part is abstract and if truly interested, you must approach a GURU who can explain this better.

10. Hold on – Hold on. You are introducing too many terms – VIRAT, GUNAS, etc. It is very confusing. How is this all information relevant to me?

OK – this much detail is not necessary. Let me say that the ONE became MANY. Everything in the world is an expression of the ULTIMATE. Every animate and inanimate expression in the Universe is nothing else but ULTIMATE. ULTIMATE is not separate from the Universe but is very much part of the Universe experiencing every experience in all animate species in the Universe. One original desire led to another desire and led to another desire and this multiplicity of desires led to multiplicity in the Universe. The ULTIMATE is actually enjoying itself through all these multiple experiences in lives across the entire spectrum of lives. To add further, ULTIMATE is the only one who is experiencing and this experiencing is being done through all aspects of the Universe – animate and inanimate. ULTIMATE is also the experiencer, the (object of) experience and the medium of experience. Therefore, if we see a waterfall, the “we” is the experiencer, the waterfall is the object of experience and medium of experience are the eyes through the act of seeing.

11. This is ridiculous – are you saying that the ULTIMATE is the only one within all life forms?

Yes – I am saying the same thing.

12. Are you therefore saying that the ULTIMATE suffers when the specific living being suffers?

ULTIMATE does not suffer. ULTIMATE just observes the pain and joy being experienced by the specific living being.

13. So are you saying that ULTIMATE is present in every living being?

Without presence of ULTIMATE, no living being can exist. What gives existence to a living being is the presence of the ULTIMATE. Equally, to go back to the original desire of the ULTIMATE which seeks to know itself, it creates these little beings (like us) which are experiencing their lives without being aware of the presence of the ULTIMATE within them.

14. If the ULTIMATE is present within each of us human beings, who suffers if the ULTIMATE does not suffer?

The ULTIMATE is the basis not just for human beings but all of life in the Universe.

15. Are you saying that ULTIMATE is present in an Ant, Bacteria, goats, dogs, etc also?

Yes – all life forms get their support from the ULTIMATE.

16. I come back to my question – if the ULTIMATE does not suffer, who really suffers?

We individuals have a unique attribute that is fundamental to our existence – it is called EGO (AHAMKAAR in Sanskrit). It is a fundamental “I-NESS”. This I-NESS gives us a separate unique identity about ourselves. This unique identity not only gives a sense of purpose of life but also accompanies with a feeling that the “I” within us is different from the “I” of another. This view of separatedness where one feels separate or distinct from another is also inbuilt in our idea of the world. This separation is illusory (or unreal) as compared with the core within us but we still carry this idea within our minds (we have therefore been equipped with an artificial intelligence and not real intelligence).

17. Hold on – you are messing up big time. I think you are contradicting yourself. Either you are confused or you are trying to confuse me. But I am smart and I have caught you off-guard!!!!

Hahaha – What happened? I do not have a problem being corrected if I am stating a wrong statement.

18. You said that ULTIMATE is all there is but now you are stating that there are separate individuals with an “I-NESS”. Both are oxymorons and cannot go together. You are messed up.

I agree I am messed up generally but will still hold on to what I have stated above.

19. Please answer my question.

I mentioned in “9” and “10” above that BRAHMAN created a platform which goes by the name PRAKRITI. BRAHMAN entered this platform and the very first creation called as VIRAT carried this sense of “I-NESS”. Owing to multiplicity of desires which I have highlighted above, every subsequent creation continued to carry this sense of “I-NESS”. As each “I” pursued its own limited desire, it FORGOT its connection with the WHOLE (the BRAHMAN). All of us individuals are therefore merely bundles of desire who have forgotten our own true nature and pursuing our individual desires. We have lost our connection with the WHOLE and thereby suffering.

20. Is this is reason for presence of reincarnation in ancient Indian thought?

Yes – all of ancient Indian thought – Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc., has this distinct feature. Interestingly, even Taoism that grew in China shares many interesting tenets of Indian thought. Till these individual bundles of desire continue to have these desires and maintain a distinctive “I-NESS”, our individual lives will obviously continue to get reincarnated. Once we get back home to our original state, there becomes no need to be born again as all our desires have either been met or we have outgrown them

21. But this is a negative approach to life. Are you telling us to live desireless? That is a recipe for a boring life.

It is not a matter of saying that we must remove our desires. WE HAVE THEM within us as our core and just by saying or closing our eyes to new temptations, we cannot get rid of desires. Nor such a course of action is advisable.

22. You are again confusing me – on one side, you state that we must abandon desires and on the other, you state that this is not possible.

You are what you are. Not pursuing desires will merely repress our emotions and these will manifest later in a different form. Instead, we have the free will to pursue our desires but simultaneously, we must introspect whether this path is indeed valid. If we feel we derive joy in this, we can pursue further but the intensity of introspection must also intensify. Over a period of time, we need to outgrow our desires. If this is however not possible in this life owing to whatever weaknesses we posses, reincarnation cannot be avoided.

23. I do have some appreciation to your ideas….

These are not MY ideas; these ideas are part of the ancient Indian historical traditions which I am merely parroting.

24. OK – agree. But I still have some problem with the end goal. You are stating that we must abandon “I-NESS”. This will mean that we will not exist at all once we are enlightened. This is akin to a permanent death. Why should I follow a tradition which tells that I have no future?

Hahaha – Now you have used the word enlightenment on your own. The other non-Indian traditions do not have this concept – they use the word “Salvation” but not enlightenment. Other traditions talk of heaven as the ultimate goal – not so as per Indian thought. In India, one of the words used is “MOKSHA” or “KAIVALYA”. However, this is not a state of depression – this is a state when we achieve EXISTENCE, CONSICIOUSNESS AND BLISS. This is a good state to be in. How can you conclude that one does not exist at this state when EXISTENCE is the first attribute of this state? This state is also a state when we are CONSCIOUS and how can one conclude that this is a negative state? We actually reach a state of highest intelligence when we see things with a complete feeling of BLISS – our journey of life is movement from our lowest state of awareness to reach the highest state of BLISS. This becomes the fundamental purpose of life – how can one say that this is a dead state? Just like a child becomes a teenager and then becomes an adult, we merely pass from a state of lower understanding to a higher understanding. There is no loss of existence at all but merely movement to a level of higher growth till we reach the level of ULTIMATE and once we reach this level; we become truly enlightened (meaning we reach our original state of existence).

25. Understood and appreciate. But there are still some problems? You made a point that ancient Indian thought does not talk about heaven. But the word “SWARGA” is used in Indian traditions to mean Heaven itself. How can you say there is no heaven in Indian thought?

Of course Indian thought recognizes heaven but this is not the ultimate state. This is merely an intermediary stage that a living being will pass through. It is simplistically stated that positive actions make beings go to heaven and negative actions make people go to hell. However, these are merely temporary abodes but not permanent. Once the experience of heaven or hell is exhausted, one has to again take a life and go through the entire learning process to achieve enlightenment.

26. You mentioned positive and negative – is this what Karma is all about?

Yes – Karma is usually translated in terminology of good and bad. But this is not so. Essentially, all actions driven in a mind-state of ego-separation (from the rest of living beings and non-living beings) will have consequences while all actions undertaken in a feeling of WHOLENESS are actually non-actions and will have the impact of reducing the “I-NESS”.

27. Sorry – do not understand. What consequences are you referring to here?

Actions done in a state of “I-NESS” have an underlying presumption that our “I” is different from another. As stated above, this is based on a false understanding of the truth of the Universe whereas the reality of the Universe is that the ULTIMATE is indeed everything within it. Any action based on this state of “I-NESS” is therefore a limited action and such actions based on false understanding will necessarily create circumstances where we are given a chance to unlearn our false understanding. Such circumstances that get created may be termed as positive or negative but actually speaking, these are not positive or negative. Our mind assigns terms “positive” and “negative” from the sense of “I-NESS” but these situations are really circumstances that will get created to enable us to get rid of “I-NESS”. To give an example, why do all religions advocate charity? They advocate charity since this will mean that we temporarily expand the idea of our “I-NESS” and include the “other” within our “I”. This temporary expansion is in fact an action that is getting closer to the state of ULTIMATE and heaven is indeed the consequence of such an action of expansion. However, we will return back to another life since our expansion is still temporary or partial and not wide enough or expansive from the state of the ULTIMATE.

28. But the world does continue to have suffering and has many bad and evil people. How does one explain these?

As stated, the ego-sense leads people to perform actions to protect their “I-NESS” or guard against other people who are seen as enemies. Clearly whosoever are regarded as bad people are people driven by insecurities or are too much in love with their false “I” which create consequences in the form of actions that cause harm to others. So yes – the world indeed has such people but I will go a step further and say that the whole world is full of such people only. The presence of this “I-NESS” varies from person to person in terms of degrees but this is a fundamental tenet of whole of mankind.

On the question of suffering, I agree that there is suffering. But one needs to also understand how we as individuals have this perception of suffering. It is real so long as “I’NESS” is present in a deep manner but to one who regards all of life as a part of him, suffering of all of mankind is his suffering only or joys of all mankind is his joy only. Abandon the “I-NESS” and suffering will cease. I agree this does sound exotic and impractical but as far as this paragraph is concerned, please do not opine immediately but do reflect deeply over the statement with your experience and try to re-understand the intent behind this statement in a deeper manner.

There is a common misconception that Indian thought does not address morality at all. This view is uninformed. Morality as per Indian thought is not based on writings in a certain book or prescriptions that need to be followed with full belief without application of rational wisdom that is lying within our own persona – Indian thought does indeed have moral prescriptions also but delves deeper than prescriptions and goes into the core thought lying behind the moral injunctions (e.g., charity, helping neighbours, etc). The word Dharma is used commonly and represents a core tenet of Indian thought. Thereby, actions can be undertaken from two standpoints – “LIMITED SEPARATEDNESS” and “COMPREHENSIVE WHOLENESS”. Actions undertaken from the standpoint of the latter are referred to as Dharma and actions undertaken from the standpoint of the former are not fully as per Dharma and therefore will have consequences which is known as Karma. Focus through Dharma based actions is therefore geared towards reducing “I-NESS” in actions and thereby bring about complete objectivity of perspective rather than presence of the limited “I” that ends up being a selfish endeavor. Actions aligned with Dharma therefore bring about benefits for the whole of Universe while actions not aligned with Dharma bring about pursuit of limited self-interest. Dharma as the basis of morality therefore becomes far more subtle than external prescriptions contained within a certain book since such prescriptions may lead to contradictory interpretations of situations (e.g., DO NOT LIE) and thereby perpetrate confusion forever.

29. Does GOD or ULTIMATE punish bad people?

Again, we tend to think in terms of a “punisher” and “punished” since we are groomed to think this way. Bottom-line is – ULTIMATE has laid down many laws for functioning of the Universe. One of the laws is the Law of KARMA. All are bound by this law of KARMA. So yes – any person who has an obsessive “I-NESS” that harms another will have to face consequences. This law works for all people. Animals are not bound by law of KARMA since they do not possess free will but merely act spontaneously for self-protection and self-preservation. But humans are bound by the law of KARMA inextricably whether they are aware of this or not. So let us not reduce our thought to words like “good” and “bad” actions only but understand the consequences of our actions in a far deeper manner.

30. I will still maintain that there is a problem with your view. If the whole of life is the body of the ultimate, it seems to thereby indicate that the ULTIMATE allows bad people to promote bad behavior. Equally, it appears to state that when people perform bad actions, we must somehow allow such people to continue to indulge in bad behavior since they are after all part of our own body.

Is Jesus not credited with a statement – “The meek inherit the Heaven” or “Let one who is not a sinner throw stones on another”, etc. What are these statements trying to convey? Essentially, bad people are people who exhibit excessive and selfish individualism that is causing harm to others. ULTIMATE is watching them as much as ULTIMATE is watching the so-called good people. Just like the Sun graces or blesses all types of people with its rays, the ULTIMATE also watches everyone. With respect to how to handle people who trouble the others, one must look at them with love and attempt to lessen their individualism first so that the harm to others is lessened. We must attempt to remove the evil within them rather than talk about removing them altogether. However, if this is not successful and such people persist in their obnoxious behavior that causes harm to others, one must remove them from the society with the same mindset that one removes a leg which has been bitten by a snake. We must undergo same mental trauma in punishing such people since they are after all part of the same ULTIMATE. Only if this mindset of comprehensive love permeates our persona, only then can we say with any confidence that we have understood the words credited to Jesus. If this sounds utopian, it means that there is a lot of scope for personal growth since our mind has still not achieved this state of Universal love.

31. I have now got some appreciation for the ideas driven by ancient Indian thought. Then why do Indians state that ancient Indian thought is a way of life? All other religions are also a way of life in another way. Ideas like charity are present in other religions also. So what is unique about ancient Indian thought that makes it different from the others?

This is a good question. An author Rajiv Malhotra of a book titled “Being Different” has defined the following aspects of ancient Indian thought that make this world view distinct from the others. This difference is more fundamental and of deeper import. These are:

1. Integral Unity of the Universe – as stated, whole of Universe is connected and the ULTIMATE is a vital ingredient of our UNIVERSE and not someone distant from this. This idea of integral unity is not fully fundamental in other traditions unlike ancient Indian thought. For example, India appreciates the distinction between matter and energy but goes further and says that behind this distinction also, there is a fundamental unity and this unity is on account of the ULTIMATE being present in all.
2. Reincarnation and KARMA.
3. Stress on Embodied Knowing (or enlightenment) vs history centrism – Ancient Indian thought drives its adherents to expand continually through experience. Such experience must eventually lead to abandonment of “I-NESS” as a last stage of achieving enlightenment. The drive is not for some artificial concept called Heaven that comes to us because of someone else whom we call GOD but our own expansion through actions that we are accountable for eventually. Yes – it recognizes grace of GOD as an essential ingredient but the journey is undertaken with complete individual freedom. Western traditions are however history centric – if we take Christianity, there is this Nicene creed which all adherents have to believe in (Adam and Eve erred, God cursed entire Mankind, Jesus born from a Virgin Mother and thereby not impacted by the curse of God to mankind and Jesus absorbing sins of the whole world). This history is central and essential for belief in Christianity. This history is either real or some liberals may term this as symbolic but belief in this history is a critical necessity. There is no such dependence on a historical obsession for a certain event or series of events with respect of ancient Indian thought. While Indians do have a long history and use history to narrate much learning from beings which lived in the past, absence of such a history will not dilute the message in any form. As you can see the above note does not use history at all to explain the concepts nor refers to even to any historical character but one cannot talk about Christianity without Nicene Creed or Islam without Prophet Mohammed. This is shown as a fundamental difference since “history-centric” thought promotes exclusivity with claim of exclusive history driving a club of special members who BELIEVE in the history (as against the unfortunate others) while embodied knowledge that focus on experiential growth cannot, by its very nature, promote exclusivist thought.
4. Non-translatables in Sanskrit – Ancient Indian thought is primarily expressed in Sanskrit. The language is referred to as the language of the GODS. More particularly, the language construct is unique and is said to be beneficial in seeking enlightenment. The mantras in Sanskrit themselves are believed to have a special power and chanted in a certain way will give benefits to the chanter even though the meaning of the words may not be clear. This again makes is unique and a differentiating factor vis a vis other traditions. Translating Sanskrit words into English will bring down the benefit since English words will not have similar potency as the words in Sanskrit. This may be a matter of belief but there is evidence of some modern researchers who have done experimentation on some of the Sanskrit Mantras and have come to the conclusion of the special powers of these Mantras.

There are some other aspects also which are fundamental but the four ones above are critical to understand ancient Indian thought that distinguish it from the others. So yes – Indian thought is indeed a way of life because the above tenets that governs the day to day life and because of its “experiential” tendency rather than the need to follow the prescriptions of a certain book or a prophet, it is commonly stated that it strives to promote a certain way of life. This way of life is however based on certain thought patterns that are unique and distinct from the thought pattern of some of the other world-view – this distinction must therefore be clearly understood and appreciated.

32. But some Indian Gurus also state that all religions lead to God. What do you say to that?

With all due respect to these Gurus, this statement does not make sense. How can a world view that does not have the four tenets described above lead to be same conclusion as the one where the four tenets given above are fundamental? While it is true that the primary Indian scripture, the Rig-Veda, indeed make a statement that “Truth is ONE and the wise call it by various names”, the underlying understanding of the paths was their alignment to the ancient Indian thought which do share the four tenets stated above. How can the roads going in opposite directions reach the same conclusion – such a view would be bereft of rational thinking. However, Indian thought itself has led to birth of many sub-paths which may look different on matters of some detail but despite these multiple differences, all of these multiple sub-paths share the same defining four fundamental tenets (Integrated Unity, etc) and thereby indeed will lead to the same goal of enlightenment. This idea cannot however be extended to paths that were germinated outside India since the other paths do not have the same goal of enlightenment but are seeking “Heaven” or “avoiding hell” – when the end goal and even the approaches to the goal are different and the core understanding of GOD itself is different, the statement that “all religions lead to GOD” is frivolous or made casually.

33. Are you therefore stating that the non-Indian paths are wrong?

This is the sort of binarism one must avoid. Just because I follow a certain path does not mean that I am stating that the other paths are invalid. I follow Indian path because it makes sense to me. Equally, I respect other people who follow paths that make sense to the others. Each has the will and freedom to pursue their chosen path. Ultimately, GOD only may have an answer to the question of validity of all paths but while my path is valid for me, I respect the opinion of others to pursue the path that they believe is valid to them. I am however willing to concede that any person who truthfully follows any path in rightful endeavor and with an open mind to discard the wrong assumptions gathered by him/ her in pursuit of truth will definitely find the right path. Such path will then become his or her own unique path to GOD and will go beyond the human construct of religion as we know it.

34. Aha – so you are advocating religious tolerance – this is a good thing.

No – I am not advocating religious tolerance. Tolerance is a very negative word. It seems to state that I do not like the other but since I do not have a choice, I tolerate. Does one tolerate a wife or a husband? No – they love and respect one another. Similarly, we must respect all paths that people follow and I respect the right of others to follow the path that they like. I am not interested in converting the others but if someone is willing to understand my path, I will explain my path to them. However, this respect must be mutual and while I do not seek to convert others and allow others to live as per their beliefs, I equally expect MUTUAL respect where the others also understand my fundamental beliefs and respect my actions. The respect must be mutual and if it indeed is, it is far better than tolerance since this is more fundamental. In any case, as per my world view, the whole world is after all an expression of the ULTIMATE and I cannot therefore exclude anyone from this Universal view. There is no other from the view of the ULTIMATE and no Satan, no evil, no over-privileged or under-privileged – these are merely human constructs. I only have a problem with people who try to convert others and spread world views that they are somehow special and simultaneously disrespect the world view of the others.

35. One last question – Ancient Indian thought allows image worship and has thousands of GODS. Since you refer only to a single ULTIMATE who has no image and who is only ONE, these actions contravene the truth. Does it mean that modern Indian religion has degenerated and strayed away from its own stated ideals?

Hahaha – NOOOO. There is no degeneration. Ancient Indian thought is all inclusive since it regards ULTIMATE as present everywhere. Besides, it seeks to enable each and every person on this Earth a doorway through which he or she can connect with the ULTIMATE – because there are multiple mindset and personalities, there are multiple doorways which will eventually connect with the same ULTIMATE being. Image worship and numerous Indian Gods facilitate such a connection to the multiple of people on this planet. Besides, the wrong translation of Indian words into English has created this confusion in the minds of many modern interpreters of religion.

Let us first stake image worship. The Indian word used for image is MURTI which is essentially a symbol of the ULTIMATE. “Symbol” and “Idol” do not mean the same thing. By using an image, a devotee is therefore merely aligning himself or herself with a symbol that enables him or her to focus on the DIVINE. Just like a flag is said to represent a country though there is actually no connection between a flag and a country, similarly, a MURTI is merely a symbol that enables us to focus or concentrate or meditate on the DIVINE. The DIVINE is so vast, limitless, attributeless, subtle, etc and it is difficult to conceive of such complexity for a limited individual like me. I therefore use a MURTI to focus on some attributes of the DIVINE and these therefore serve as a reminder and an aid for meditation. Image worship is not therefore an end in itself but merely a means to an end.

Let me talk about Indian Gods. This has again come about due to wrong translation of the word Deva as GOD. Deva is a unique word and also wrongly translated as Angels or Gods in English. Right from the very first scripture of the world – Rigveda, the ULTIMATE is always ONE and it is from the ONE that many came about. This understanding is quite clear. Under “j” above, I have however referred to multitude of experiences that the ULTIMATE witnesses. I had also stated that it is essential for such experience to happen that there is also a medium of expression – we see because of eyes, we breathe because of nose, we hear because of ears, etc. The nose, eyes, ears, etc facilitate an experience because there is a presiding deity within us as well as the object of experience – the connecting link between the subject and the object is facilitated because of a presence of a presiding deity – this presiding deity is what is meant by Deva. Thereby millions of GODS are referred to since there are millions of experiences and millions of presiding deities which facilitate these multitudes of experiences. This word – 33 million GODS must not be taken literally but in a symbolical sense that there are numerous presiding deities which will enable us to experience the world.

36. If the above is indeed so, why do we have to pray or worship these presiding deities?

Ultimately, it is the ONE who also manifests as presiding deities. The power of presiding deities is what makes every experience possible. Since the world is full of powers and full of individuals who have their own preference to certain types of powers which appeal to them, these multifarious deities address the needs of these multiple individuals. For example, “power” appeals to some people, “love” appeals to some people, “wealth” appeals to some people, “destruction” appeals to some other people, etc. Each such attribute has a presiding deity which becomes an object of worship though Krishna says in the Gita that ultimately, any worship undertaken to any Deva eventually comes to HIM only (meaning that there is only ONE ULTIMATE DEVA and all the others are merely the multiple attributes of the ONE only).

Final comments by the Questioner: Thank you very much for these discussions. While I still retain some skepticism of your world view, I least have a reasonable appreciation for ancient Indian thought. I will however reflect more in your ideas but at least this has given me some insight into your mind which was very enlightening.

Final Answer: Skepticism is essential for growth. Without skepticism, there is just blind belief which leads no one anywhere. This attitude is central to Indian thought and growth is only possible with skepticism that is positively oriented towards truth. Thank you – I will end with a joint prayer for both of us. This comes up in one of the ancient Indian scriptures – the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad:

MAY WE MOVE FROM UNTRUTH TO TRUTH

MAY WE MOVE FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT

MAY WE MOVE FROM DECAY/ DEATH TO IMMORTALITY

OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTI

Peace (within), Peace (around ourselves) and Peace (across the Universe)