Of the Universal, the Particular and Oneness

What is oneness? Does the oneness of the universal and the particular negate the existence of the particular? When a river flows into the ocean, does it cease to exist?

I have been thinking about these questions quite a bit in the last few weeks. These thoughts got triggered primarily from three sources. The first was an exploration of the 'dvaita', 'advaita' and 'vishitadvaita' schools of thought. The second was the Gospel of John in the Bible, especially John 14: 20 ("On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you"). The third was Hegelian Metaphysics that talks about the synthesis of the thesis and the antithesis. 

So, what is my 'final conclusion'? Thank God, I no longer have any compulsion to arrive at any such 'final conclusion'. I have come to realize that, especially in matters like this, it is much better to let my questions and answers evolve (and to observe how and why they evolve in a particular manner). I guess, my recent explorations on the 'Philosophy of Science' also helped a lot. The nature of 'truth' in science is always tentative - based on the available data at a particular point of time - and it get revised (if required) as more data becomes available.

So, let me just share my 'current thinking on this matter': 

To me, the particular (e.g. the individual) and the universal ('God') are integrated - in the sense of being of the same essence (same nature) - though this does not totally negate their separate existence. The particular is the universal without ceasing to be particular. 

There are two types of oneness, oneness among the particular entities and oneness between the particular and the universal. Individuality (and diversity) at the level of the particular is indeed possible, while maintaining the essential unity (like 'each apple from the same apple tree can be slightly different - while very much remaining as an apple - and as the fruit of the same apple tree'). We must remember that the 'synthesis' of 'oneness and otherness' is much more than a simple 'negation' (as it also includes the element of 'preservation').

'Inseparable' doesn't necessarily mean 'indistinguishable'. 'Togetherness' (thou art with me) can also be a form of oneness. "I am in you and you are in me", doesn't necessarily mean the 'you' and the 'I' are totally indistinguishable. Yes, they are deeply integrated, and, to me, Jesus is a perfect example of this integration (of 'being fully human and fully divine at the same time'). I also feel that the main purpose of Christianity is to be more like Jesus Christ (to enable us to develop our human nature and our divine nature at the same time and to integrate them)! 

This also brings to mind an interesting fact about the famous 'Sabarimala Temple' in my home state Kerala - that the deity and the devotees (pilgrims) are called by the same name ('Ayyappa'). One needs to observe 41 days of 'vratham'(severe austerity measures) before undertaking the pilgrimage. Also, the traditional route to the temple was through a dense forest where one had good chance of being attacked by wild animals. So, when the devotee reaches the temple after observing the 'vratham' and after the dangerous and difficult journey through the forest (keeping one's mind focused on the deity all the while), the devotee 'becomes one with the deity'. This is also amplified by the words 'tat tvam asi' ('thou art that'), written on the temple indicating that the devote has become (one with) what the devotee was seeking!

Yes, I do feel that 'oneness' is the cornerstone of religious experience!

Any comments?

Of rituals, culture and spirituality

This post was triggered by a discussion based on an article that spoke about the decreasing importance given by the young generation to rituals and how that could impact our culture and spirituality.

My immediate response was that rituals becomes more meaningful when we know the meaning behind the rituals. We tend to be not so enthusiastic about those rituals that we feel are 'empty'(of meaning).

Sense-making is a function of place and time, and, it happens within the prevailing worldview, culture and the intellectual atmosphere. In the case of some rituals, original meaning/intent just has to be explained to make the rituals meaningful to a new group of people (e.g. the young generation). In the case of some other rituals, a significant reinterpretation is required. In a modern society, with more choice and awareness at the individual level (as compared to earlier times), expecting everyone to follow the rituals without evaluating them is a bit unrealistic.

 Yes, in the case of many of the rituals, the meaning is not in the rituals itself, but it is in the state of mind and the connect (to oneself, others and to the divine) that the ritual (if performed 'properly') helps to attain!

 Let me try to illustrate this with two examples, the first from Christianity and the next from Hinduism:  

During the holy communion,  when the bread and wine are blessed, they 'become' (in the subjective reality of the communicant) the body and blood of Christ. Now, this transformation in the subjective reality can't take place without tuning fully into the ritual by means of prayers, singing etc. 

Let me also add a personal perspective here. When it comes to the meaning of holy communion, some sort of 'U-Curve-like' phenomenon happened in my case. At first, I didn't think too much about the meaning and implications of holy communion, beyond taking it a way to remember Jesus. Later, I did a lot of thinking about the meaning of holy communion and and I became a bit uncomfortable, as I interpreted it to be some sort of 'ritualistic cannibalism' - till I realized that in many ancient societies, the main motive behind ritualistic cannibalism was not shortage of meat - it was to get the powers of the person who passed away. 

In the case of holy communion, this is explicitly affirmed in the prayers that prepares one for holy communion. For example, "so that you can be in us and we can be in you" in the prayer of humble access. To me, the main objective of Christianity is to become more like Jesus Christ - fully human and fully divine  at the same time (please see 'Miracle' for more details) and to become one with Him. From that perspective, the ritual of holy communion, if done properly with understanding, can be a great enabler! We can also say that the ritual of holy communion becomes meaningful, only in the context of the religious/spiritual experience that allows one to feel the oneness with Christ.   

Now, let's come to the second example. I grew up in Kerala. In many of the temples in Kerala, there is the ritual of 'pradakshinam', that involves circumambulating the (sanctum sanctorum of the) temple. These days, you will see many people running around the temple at 'breakneck speed' which takes away meaning of the ritual. The original idea was that you should do the 'pradakshinam' with your mind focused on the deity- and your speed of walking should be only as much as that of a nine-months pregnant woman who is walking with a jar of full of oil balanced on her head (without spilling it, of course). So, if it is done properly, this ritual definitely becomes a great mindfulness exercise and a great way to focus on the divine. Yes, if one just runs around the temple at 'breakneck speed', just to observe the form of the ritual (without bothering about the spirit behind it), the ritual becomes meaningless indeed! 

Where does this leave us? Rituals are useful when they are done properly and with adequate understanding of  (and resonance with) their intent (underlying meaning/purpose) Yes, we should not 'de-ritualize' our society. Rituals can bring in a 'sense of the sacred' and that of profoundness to our lives. They can also help in facilitating psychological transitions (see 'accelerated learning and rites of passage') and in attaining altered states of awareness/higher levels of consciousness. Rituals can also encode, amplify and reinforce cultural elements. Yes, 'de-ritualization is a move towards 'de-spiritualization' and hence towards alienation'!

Any comments?