How did the Vedic literature world come about? How does creation begin? Where and why did we (souls) come to the material world? Does the soul of the Veda have a gender?

Can the existence of the soul be proven? Now our consciousness is entirely focused on the body. But the nature of the soul can only be comprehended by one whose gaze is turned inward. For people whose consciousness has been cleansed by keeping vows, meditation, prayer and repentance, the fact of the existence of the soul seems self-evident - for them it is not a matter of faith, but of real spiritual experience. For others, even despite the presence of a huge empirical material, the existence of the soul will remain an unproven hypothesis.

“If an Asian asks me what Europe is, I will be forced to answer:“ This is the part of the world in which people are obsessed with the fantastic idea that man was created from nothing and that before his present birth did not exist. A. Schopenhauer

“Some look at the soul as a miracle, others speak of it as a miracle, others hear that it is like a miracle, and there are those who, even having heard about the soul, cannot comprehend it.”"Bhagavad Gita".

Even the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides argued that if something exists, then it always exists*. Anything can be questioned, except for one obvious truth: I exist, which means, according to Parmenides, I have always existed and will not cease to exist in the future. Almost verbatim the same idea was repeated by one of the founding fathers of America - Benjamin Franklin **.

Of course, the reference to Parmenides is unlikely to convince anyone now, but this idea itself is logical enough, so people return to it again and again. If there is a law of conservation of matter and a law of conservation of energy, then why can't there be a law of conservation of consciousness? Many of the laws discovered in ancient times, we are rediscovering for ourselves only now. The law of conservation of consciousness is one of them. This is how the Bhagavad-gita formulates it: “What is constantly changing is the same as not existing, but what exists must be unchanged and always exist” (B.-g., 2.16). We can divide the arguments in favor of the concept of the eternity of consciousness into four broad categories: 1) These ideas are confirmed by the revealed scriptures (primarily the scriptures of the Vedic tradition) and the experience of many genuine saints and mystics, who, by definition, are free from the tendency to deception; 2) the concept of the eternity of consciousness is logical, corresponds to our innate ideas about justice and goodness, and allows us to create a complete picture of the universe; 3) there is a huge amount of experimental material that testifies to the preservation of consciousness after the death of the physical body; 4) practical conclusions drawn on the basis of the idea that the soul is eternal, allow a person to live his life much more meaningfully and fruitfully.

* “Being does not arise and is not subject to death. Whole everything, without end, does not move and is uniform.

** "Based on the fact of my existence in this world, I can assume that in one form or another I will always exist."

Do ideas about the eternity of the soul have pragmatic value? The answer is obvious: those who live based on the concept of the eternity of the soul are much more likely to live this life with dignity and not be afraid of its continuation in the future than those who proceed from the unproven hypothesis of the “one-time” life. The inability to think about the distant future is intellectual short-sightedness, a sign of the weakness of the mind. Intuitive insight into the eternity of the soul is inherent in man by nature. A truly far-sighted person lives without trying to suppress the feeling of the eternity of being. The wisest of people in all ages have tried to develop this feeling in themselves and thus gained happiness, fortitude and fearlessness. The same pragmatic proof is valid on the scale of human history: the denial of the existence of an eternal soul and the attempt to build a heaven on earth without God - an experiment begun by Western civilization about two hundred years ago, during the Age of Enlightenment - brought the entire Earth to the brink of ecological catastrophe. In other words, consciousness that denies the existence of an eternal soul is destructive by its very nature. The motto "After us, at least a flood" is dangerous not only for our descendants, whom we, without asking, doom to the flood provoked by us, but, above all, for ourselves, because the "flood", as a rule, comes much faster than we predict .

But is it possible to prove the existence of the soul? Depending on what we consider evidence. Can we, for example, prove the existence of the mind? Who has seen the mind? Who felt him? The mind cannot be understood by logic or by the methods of physics and chemistry. To study it, other methods are needed. The same is true of the eternal soul: everyone can be convinced of its existence, but for this you need to use special methods. Now our consciousness is entirely focused on the body. Only one whose consciousness is directed inward can comprehend the nature of the soul. The Upanishads explain that the mind acquires the ability to comprehend the soul when prana (vital air) stops its activity, that is, when the mind, concentrated on the body, is concentrated inside (Mundaka Upanishad, 3.1.9.). Therefore, while philosophers break spears, arguing about the nature of the soul, yogis plunge into a mystical trance, and believers try to wash their hearts with tears of repentance. In other words, for people whose consciousness is purified by keeping vows, meditation, prayer and repentance, the fact of the existence of the soul seems to be self-evident - for them it is not a matter of faith, but of real spiritual experience. For others, even in spite of the presence of vast empirical material, the existence of the soul will remain an unproven hypothesis, because the soul belongs to those categories, the existence of which is difficult to prove using a purely scientific apparatus adapted to the study of external objects.

Of course, for the philosophers of the Vedic tradition, the fact of the existence of the soul did not seem so difficult to prove. Their logic was something like this. The observer (subject) is always different from the object of observation. To prove the existence of a thing, it is enough to see it, that is, the existence of an object is proved by observation. But the subject cannot see itself: the existence of the subject (observer) is proved by the very fact of observation. Descartes said: "I think, therefore I am." It is also clear that the nature of this observing self is not limited to body and mind, because both my body and my mind can be the object of my observation. Therefore, the bearer of this "I" must be different from body and mind.

Someone may object: “As far as the body is concerned, everything is clear, but what prevents us from assuming that the mind itself is watching the mind? Say, one part of the mind, some kind of superprogram, takes over the functions of monitoring other parts of the mind, the programs that work in it?” Let's see how the introduction of the concept of the soul, separate from the mind, corresponds to the famous logical principle of Occam, which says: "You should not involve new entities unless absolutely necessary." In other words, in order to prove the validity of the introduction of this concept, it is necessary to show that the entire spectrum of manifestations of consciousness cannot be fully explained on the basis of the hypothesis that consciousness is simply a product of the human brain.

From the point of view of the Vedic scriptures, the soul is an indestructible atom of consciousness, a carrier of a special quality: the ability to be aware of being. By itself, matter has no consciousness and is not capable of playing the role of a subject (observer). In Sanskrit, this atom of consciousness is called atma, which means “subject”, the carrier of “I”, the personal principle (from the verbal root am, “to move”, “to act”). The Upanishads call the soul anu, which means "atomic" or "indivisible." Another name for the soul is jiva, "living being." The Russian word life and the Sanskrit jiva come from the same Sanskrit root jiva, which means "to live." Unlike most Western philosophical and theological teachings, the Vedas assert that not only humans, but also animals, including the lower ones, have a soul. In other words, any manifestation of life has a spiritual nature; life is based on an indestructible spiritual principle.

So, the soul, or jiva, is an eternal particle of the spirit endowed with limited independence, an atom of consciousness, the cause of all manifestations of life. It is distinguished from dead matter, first of all, by the ability to be aware of its existence and to cognize the surrounding world. It is this quality - the ability to perceive - that distinguishes the living from the non-living.

The atma-soul has three main properties: 1) the soul is indestructible; 2) the soul is atomic; h) the soul has consciousness, that is, the ability to act and enjoy relative freedom. These properties of the soul are axiomatic. The scriptures postulate their presence in the atma - or rather, they define the atma as that which has these qualities.

We can clearly see that the human "I" is permanent. Everything with which we identify ourselves - our body, mind, environment - is constantly changing. If our

“I” changed with them, we would not notice the changes and certainly would not perceive them so tragically. To notice the movement of something, you need to be motionless yourself: being in an airplane, we do not feel the movement of the aircraft. The body of man and his mind are constantly changing: we were a baby, then a child, a teenager, a youth, an adult. But there is a certain fixed reference point from which we observe all these changes. By some miracle, our "I" in the process of all these changes remains unchanged. What ensures the constancy, or continuity, of our self-perception? This constancy must have some basis in reality.

The development of science only confirms the changeability of matter. Modern medicine has found that in about seven years our entire body changes at the molecular level, that is, every seven years we get a completely new body. But at the same time, our "I" remains unchanged. Someone, recognizing the variability of matter, may object that the stability of our "I" is ensured by the stability of the structure, say, of the brain, which contains the mechanisms of structural self-reproduction. Here is what Roger Penrose, one of the most prominent theoretical physicists, who, among other things, studies the nature of consciousness, writes about this in his book “Shadows of the Mind”:

Most of the matter that makes up our body and brain is constantly updated - only their models remain unchanged. Moreover, matter itself seems to lead a transient existence, since it can be transformed from one form to another ... Thus, matter itself is something indefinite and short-lived, so it is quite reasonable to assume that the permanence of the human "I", perhaps more to do with the preservation of models than actual particles of matter.

But the persistence of patterns that Penrose speaks of must also be based on something, have some cause or substratum. It is at least illogical to attribute this property to matter that is changeable by its very nature. This is one of the arguments in favor of the existence of the soul, the bearer of properties that changeable matter does not have.

And one more curious fact: a person does not feel the reality of death. There is nothing more alien to our consciousness than the idea that we will someday die, cease to exist. Nobody wants to die, moreover, nobody believes in their own death. Yes, theoretically we admit such a possibility. Any person strives for constancy, eternity, immutability - and denies death with all his might. What is the basis of this stubborn aspiration? Even if something does not suit us in reality and we raise a rebellion against it, demanding changes, subconsciously we hope that in this reality changed for the better there will be the constancy we are looking for. Any change, be it a change outside of us or a change in our body, unbalances a person and puts him in a state of existential crisis. In other words, the unjustified desire for constancy has very deep roots in our psyche. An obvious example of this is the age-related crises that every person experiences throughout life. A child who becomes a teenager goes through a very strong crisis; a teenager who becomes a young man goes through a difficult period of his life; an adult is also facing a no less severe crisis, the so-called midlife crisis - a crisis of expectation of inevitable changes caused by old age. And of course, the most serious crisis in the life of every person is death, which mercilessly forces us to once again change our ideas about ourselves. The cause of age crises is an internal discord, a discrepancy between two realities: the changeable external reality and the unchanging reality of our "I". If variability were in the nature of consciousness, death or aging would not be subjectively perceived by us as an anomaly or cruel injustice.

Sometimes the soul is compared to a spark from a fire (Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.2.20) or to a ray of the spirit. To give a rough idea of ​​the pinpoint dimensions of the soul, the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (5.9) states that the soul is less than one ten thousandth of the tip of a hair in size. The atomic nature of consciousness is closely related to the immutability of the soul. The atom, in the original sense of the word, is indecomposable and therefore indestructible and immutable. Further, the atomicity of the soul, or its localization, explains the limited scope of the manifestation of individual consciousness. There are philosophers in India who, denying the plurality of souls, believe that we are all manifestations of one omnipresent consciousness. But we know from experience that our individual consciousness permeates only our body and does not extend to other bodies. Even the baby in the mother's womb does not feel all that the mother experiences, and the mother does not know exactly what the baby is experiencing. Thus, the atomicity of the soul explains the presence of an indestructible individuality inherent in every living being: my conscious experience is always unique and will always remain only mine. I will never be you and you will never be me.

The soul spreads its consciousness throughout the body, just as a flower spreads fragrance around itself. The Upanishads say that in our body the soul is located in the region of the heart (Prashna Upanishad, 3-6.) And from there, through the flows of prana, vital air, it spreads the energy of consciousness to the whole body. Seventy-two thousand channels depart from the heart, nadis, through which prana, vital energy (qi in Chinese philosophy) circulates, allowing the soul to feel and control its entire material body. Any violation of the circulation of prana leads to the fact that the corresponding part of our body becomes numb and eventually atrophies. It is no coincidence that the heart, and not the brain, has always been considered the source of life, consciousness and emotions and the most vulnerable part of a person. Bhagavad-gita (13.4) gives another example: the soul, being in one place, like the sun, illuminates the whole body with the light of consciousness. The postulate of the atomic nature of consciousness also explains another important fact - the integrity of our perception. All sorts of sensations in different organs of the body are not perceived by us separately, although different parts of the brain are responsible for them. All this experience belongs to one "I". This fact is very difficult to explain if we proceed from the assumption that consciousness is generated by the joint activity of billions of nerve cells. Which of them arrogates to itself the right to be the bearer of a single "I" that extends to the whole body?

The nature of consciousness is both self-evident and mysterious. Scientists involved in the study of consciousness in connection with the problem of artificial intelligence find it difficult even to define it. R. Penrose, already mentioned by us, writes in this connection:

So what is consciousness? Of course, I don't know how to define consciousness, and I don't even think it's worth trying to find such a definition (because we don't understand what it means).

And this is what the biggest specialist in the field of consciousness says! In other words, we understand a lot in this life, but, paradoxically, we don’t really understand what it means to “understand” or, for example, “feel, experience”. Penrose goes on to write:

I am sure that it is possible to find a physically based concept of consciousness, but I think that any definition will be wrong.

Wikipedia, speaking of artificial intelligence, states:

The exact definition of this science does not exist, since philosophy has not resolved the issue of the nature and status of the human intellect.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend the nature of consciousness? The Vedas explain it as follows. The nature of atma, the individual soul, is twofold: it is both the carrier of consciousness and consciousness itself, that is, consciousness is both a property of the soul and the soul itself. In other words, the soul is both an observer and an observation; the one who experiences, and the experience itself. The first aspect is called attributive consciousness, the second - constitutional consciousness. (In Sanskrit, these two aspects of consciousness are called dharma-bhuta-jnana and dharmi-bhuta-jnana, or svarupa-jnana.) To understand this, we can again use the example of a flame. Light is a property of a flame, but that same light is not just a property, but the very essence of a flame. Light as a property of the flame allows us to see the world around us, and the same light as the essence of the flame allows us to see the flame itself - I do not need another candle to see a burning candle. Like a flame, the soul is self-evident.

Consciousness as an attribute of the soul allows us, living beings, to comprehend and exploit the world around us. By comprehending the outside world, I can understand a lot, but by comprehending myself, I must understand that this understanding is myself. In other words, the soul reveals itself in the act of knowing. Therefore, in order to study the nature of consciousness, we must turn inward, to ourselves, which at the same time implies a limitation of the external, extraverted function of consciousness. As a matter of fact, in all ages there have been people who have devoted their lives to this - to a deep understanding of oneself and mastery of oneself. Vedic philosophy states that only in understanding oneself lies the meaning of human life. It is possible to exploit the material nature - to eat, send, copulate and fight for existence with the same success in any other form of life, but only a person is able to comprehend the nature of the soul. The state in which the soul realizes itself is called samadhi. The degree of extraversion of consciousness determines the place of the soul on the ladder of evolution: the more extraverted consciousness is, the further it is from the comprehension of its nature, and the more external are the goals and values ​​of the soul.

Scientists are trying hard to reduce man to the level of a complex biological mechanism that arose by chance in the process of evolution. However, a huge number of facts, even the simplest ones, cannot be satisfactorily explained within this paradigm. Even the appearance of an elementary self-preservation instinct, which, according to the theory of evolution, should have already existed in the pro-amoeba, is almost impossible to explain. Honest scientists admit that "so far not a single physical, biological or mathematical theory has come close to explaining our consciousness and its logical consequence - intelligence" (R. Penrose, "Shadows of the Mind".). In their attempts to explain the phenomenon of consciousness, scientists and philosophers are forced to postulate the presence of this quality already in the atoms of matter! (This is done, for example, by the Australian physicist Reginald Cahill.) In other words, any deep consideration of this issue inevitably leads to the need to introduce some idealistic elements into the system, so wouldn't it be more logical to immediately separate consciousness into a separate category?

Within the framework of Vedic ideas, the entire spectrum of various observable manifestations of consciousness finds a simple and natural explanation. I think that any impartial person will agree that the introduction of this concept in no way contradicts the logical principle of Occam, which forbids "to produce new entities" unnecessarily. At the same time, even from the point of view of the Vedas, the nature of consciousness is logically incomprehensible (See, for example: Bhagavad Gita, 2.25. This quality of the soul in Sanskrit is called acintya.), Because the soul is obviously contradictory. In a sense, this statement echoes one of the formulations of Gödel's theorem: "If a system of axioms is logically consistent, then it is incomplete." In other words, the quality of completeness implies logical inconsistency. The soul, as a particle of God, His tiny likeness, is complete and perfect, and therefore must be contradictory.

In this article, I have tried to touch a little on some of these contradictions inherent in the nature of the soul: it is unchanging, but the consciousness of the soul evolves; it is atomic, that is, infinitely small, and at the same time inexhaustible, eternally dependent and at the same time endowed with freedom; she is blissful by nature, but forced to drag out a miserable existence; all souls are equal, but at the same time there is a spiritual hierarchy. However paradoxical it may sound, these contradictions encountered in descriptions of the nature of the soul and consciousness are a philosophical proof of its completeness and immaterial nature. The spirit is always contradictory and does not obey the laws of logic. Although these contradictions are resolved within the framework of different schools of Vedic philosophy, nevertheless, in order to truly comprehend the soul, it is not enough just to know philosophy - the soul and consciousness are comprehended as a result of inversion of consciousness, strict spiritual discipline, concentration of the mind, and in the end - revelation. Therefore, completing the description of the nature of the soul, Sri Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita (

So, “Brahmanda” is the egg of Brahma, this is his creation, which is covered with seven layers of natural primary elements, such as earth (this is a solid state of matter), water (respectively, liquid), fire, air, space and so on. In the Old Testament, in the Book of Genesis, when describing the creation of the world, it also says that “And God called the firmament Heaven”, i.e. this means that the inner space of the Universe is limited by a solid shell. And what now seems to us the naivety of a man of the Old Testament times, in fact, can turn out to be our own naivety in the matter of perceiving the world. Because in fact, although we have so much confidence in science, in reality there is no more uncertain science than cosmology or astronomy. And there are about 40 different theories now arguing among themselves and claiming directly opposite concepts.

For example, most scientists are sure that the cosmos is an open system, i.e. that he has no boundaries. But recently, the concept has emerged that the cosmos is still closed and that it is not as big as we think. This is quite consistent with both the Vedic and Christian traditions. For example, in the Epistle to the Romans there is such a quote. It says: "The voice of the prophets went through all the earth and their words to the ends of the universe." Those. it follows that the universe has limits according to the Christian tradition. The book of Hebrews also says that God the Father introduces his firstborn son Christ into the universe. This means that Christ came from outside the universe, since he is "introduced" here. The universe designates the place where living beings instill and where these divine incarnations enter.

By the way, in the Vedas, for such divine incarnations in this world, the term "Avatar" is used, which literally means "crossing the boundaries of matter." That is, after all, matter limits the material world, puts boundaries between material and spiritual being. Those. Avatar means "who came to our closed world from the spiritual reality."

As regards now the internal structure of this world, these three worlds in the Universe, the Gospel says in this connection: “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.” Those. we consider "heavenly", "earthly" and "underworld" - three worlds. These are three levels of being - heavenly, earthly and underworld. In the Vedas, they correspond to the three main forces of material nature: Goodness (respectively, the heavenly worlds), passions (earthly worlds) and ignorance (underground worlds, nether worlds).

Those. the heavenly worlds are under the influence of the power of Goodness - this higher worlds. Their inhabitants live there in their subtle bodies without physical shells, so we cannot see these personalities, although sometimes they, like such humanoids, or celestials, or like angels, according to Christian tradition, descend into this world. They don't need to engage in any kind of economic activity for maintenance like we do, because they don't have physical bodies and therefore they don't have physical needs. The meaning of their life is immersion in the world of emotions and ideas at the astral level of being. The middle world is a world of passion, where we are covered with physical bodies and have to devote most of our time to maintaining these bodies, fighting for survival. And when these problems are somehow solved, and we experience some relief in this struggle for existence, we call it “progress”. We say: "Now we have progress."

At the level of passion in us there is a struggle between the inner spiritual principle and the impulses of the flesh. Let us assume that among the inhabitants of the higher worlds, the spiritual urges have definitely won. The evidence for this is that they no longer have physical bodies. And at the level of passion, at our level, at the level of people, there are spiritual urges here, and material urges are mixed with them, so we have a struggle, who will win in us, so to speak, either the flesh or the spirit.

As for the underworlds, lower worlds, modes of ignorance, then this ignorance is manifested there in the fact that they are completely unaware of their spiritual nature and are completely immersed in technocracy, in technical development. Those. unlike people who rush between the spiritual and the material, the inhabitants of the lower worlds are incorrigible materialists. Their success is technical achievements.

If earlier the Earth, as a planet of the middle level, was more under the influence of the higher worlds (and in the legends of different peoples we find descriptions of contacts with higher beings or with angels), now the Earth is in the grip of lower civilizations that turn people away from spirituality, giving instead of technical toys. It is from the lower worlds that these so-called Unidentified Flying Objects arrive with their secret missions. Under their influence, the people of the Earth imagine the future as full robotization and mechanization. Those. take any science fiction film and you will see the so-called "man of the future". It's just some technocrats. Some Star Wars or something. Those. these personalities, they are now more influential on Earth, representatives of the lower worlds than angels, than higher civilizations. And so people have a substitution of concepts. Those. now they mean by progress not spiritual progress, but technical progress, external progress. Most people think that way. Therefore, the advanced minds of mankind, they are now focused more on this, on technical equipment, technical progress.

In contrast to this technocratic paradise, the spiritual reality is depicted in the scriptures as, on the contrary, free from all mechanisms, since everyone there has perfect spiritual bodies, and all desires are fulfilled from a single thought. There is a quality called [sattis ankaupa] in the spiritual world. Those. when a person wishes for something, and his wish is immediately fulfilled. And there are no strict laws of the material world, which, as here, limit our freedom. Here we are forced to invent various mechanisms to overcome the pressure of matter.

And spiritual bodies in the spiritual world are, as it were, such developed souls that possess all mystical abilities. And all kinds of transformations happen very easily there, so living beings there are not shackled as much as in the material world. And therefore there is no need for crude mechanisms. Here mechanisms are appendages to our imperfect body. In the spiritual world, according to the Vedas, spiritual bodies are called the term "siddha-deha" or "siddha-svarupa", i.e. completely perfect. "Siddha" means "perfect", perfect body or perfect forms. That is why there is no need for all these external mechanisms. And just here, the further a person internally degrades, the deeper the nature of the soul gets mired in matter, the more and more there is a need for these external mechanisms, like crutches that compensate for this our spiritual degradation.

So, on the one hand, the Gospel says that the Kingdom of God is within us, and it is coming [not revealed]. On the other hand, there are, for example, in Revelation, very clear and specific descriptions of the City of God. Those. this suggests that the spiritual world is not just some kind of subjective state of ours, but it also has a specific place. Someone might think that there is no spiritual world in the external environment, that this is just a certain state of the heart. Yes, in our hearts we can indeed reflect the spiritual reality and live in this spiritual reality, in this spiritual world, even while still in the outer material world. But this does not mean at all that there is no spiritual reality outside. It exists outside. And in the Gospel Christ says that "There are many mansions in my Father's house." Those. this reality not only exists in the spiritual world, but it is also very multi-layered, multi-dimensional.

The Vedas also confirm this multi-layered structure of the spiritual world. It says that the Lord in his various incarnations resides in his various realms of reality, and his various forms give rise to various moods in the form of worship to him. Those. this is the root cause of the existence of various religions in this world, because God Himself has many forms. And he has many different moods. And here living beings are all configured differently. And some are inclined to one form of worship, others to another. And so there are traditions based on this or that mood or understanding of God.

Those. one can say just as there are different countries with different cultures in this world, so there is diversity in the spiritual world. But what is the fundamental difference? The fact that there is no enmity between the inhabitants of different spheres of spiritual existence. Those. everyone understands that God is one, but everyone there has different amazing features and therefore serve different incarnations of God. Those. The Vedas speak of various [types of Vaikuntha] and even in the very center of the spiritual world [in Rin Down] there are also various such areas, if I may say so, where the Supreme Lord is worshiped in somewhat different ways. This is the meaning of this phrase of Christ: "There are many mansions in the house of my Father." But, since everyone has a common understanding, the unity of understanding softens the diversity of emotions and attitudes towards God.

Using this rule, we can bring all the religions of the world to a common denominator, to a single spiritual knowledge, which is the foundation of religion. And in this case, the diversity of external features will not confuse representatives of different traditions. For example, the Vedas speak of the greatness, strength, and all-pervading nature of God. And in this aspect it is called " Vishnu", this is the Old Slavonic " supreme"- standing above all. And people who are most attracted to precisely such features of God as omnipotence, all-pervading nature, they turn to him in a spirit of reverence and reverence. And therefore they tend to worship the majestic form of God. Let's say, according to the Vedas, it will be a four-armed form of Vishnu. Or in the West, people will imagine God as a powerful father, such a powerful inaccessible being, before whom one wants to kneel. Because this image, it causes in them the appropriate humility, the corresponding emotions.

In addition, the same Supreme Lord in this aspect of his named Vishnu has many different incarnations. And these different forms of it attract different souls. So we see different cults. This is not just some kind of sectarianism or something else, but it is simply a manifestation of the diverse culture of the spiritual world. It is partly manifested here in this material world. Those who, for example, are inclined to see God not so much as a powerful boss or father, but rather as a friend, son, or even lover, are more likely to be attracted to the image of Krishna, which stimulates spontaneous love relationships in us, without any special distance between us and him.

Formally, these slightly different forms of worship can be called different currents within the same religion. Suppose there is Hinduism, they worship Vishnu, they worship Krishna. Here you are, as it were, some kind of different currents. But in fact, those who have not only faith, but also knowledge, they perfectly understand that, in fact, there is no difference between the form of Krishna and Vishnu, since they are one and the same person. It's just that Vishnu is God at work, powerful, so to speak, and Krishna is God at home, so he looks like that, maybe simply. And some are lost, how can God be a shepherd, barefoot, and so on. Those. they are trying to translate some notions of greatness onto God. You can imagine, for example, an intellectual, that he walks somewhere barefoot and in general in such a kind of frivolous form. He should be in a serious suit, that's all, then people will already have such associations.

Those. since people have different expectations from God, then he reacts to these expectations, taking one form or another. Or rather, not that he accepts them according to our desires - they already exist. But inwardly people expect something from God, and he appears before them in a form that roughly corresponds to the nature of their understanding and their expectations.

So, belief in the superiority of one's own tradition and some kind of national attachment to a specific image of God is what divides people, let's say so. Knowledge, which gives the concept of unity in diversity and diversity in unity, is what unites. Therefore, the foundation of religion should be spiritual knowledge, and not just faith, which is based on nationality.

For example, when describing the City of God in the Gospel it is said: "He does not need the sun or the moon to shine on him, for the glory of God has illumined him." In the Bhagavad Gita, chapter 15, Krishna says: "This is my heavenly abode, which is not illuminated by the sun, the moon, or other sources of light." Those. very similar quotes. This means that the spiritual world has a self-luminous nature and does not need external sources of light.

Spiritual reality differs from ours also in the course of time. The gospel says this: With the Lord one day is like a thousand years. In the Bhagavad Gita, in verse 16 of chapter 8, it is said about the relationship between the time of people and the upper world. It says this: “A thousand eras combined make up one day of Brahma” (this secondary creator). Although Brahma is not supreme, but the general principle in this case is clear. What in our perception seems to be a whole epoch, above, in the higher worlds, is perceived as an instant.

But what does Scripture say about God himself? The gospel is not very specific about him. Let's say this quote: “God is the one who is one, having immortality, who lives in an unapproachable light, which no man has ever seen and cannot see. And to him honor and power eternal. Amen." Such a quote. Although this statement is no doubt true, it is not completely exhaustive, since it rather describes our limitations (since no one sees it, and we cannot see it). Those. it emphasizes our limitations rather than his limitlessness.

Indeed, paternal perception is very limited, it is programmed for certain spatio-temporal characteristics, and God is clearly beyond our spectrum of perception. However, he can open up to us if we become worthy of it. One Vedic proverb illustrates this point very well. It says that "if you want to see the King, it will not be easy, but if the King wants to see you, then you can also easily see him." Therefore, the Vedas give very wise advice: do not try to see God, but live in such a way that he notices you. However, the sincere desire to see God, not out of sports interest, of course, but for the sake of inspiration, is not vicious, and therefore one of the Vedic prayers [Ishapani shat] says this quote: “Oh, my Lord, please eliminate this dazzling radiance emanating from you, and reveal your true face to me.

Thus, the divine light or enlightenment, which many take as the highest goal of spiritual life, is actually only the initial stage of understanding God, since behind this bright light lies its source, the supreme personality of God.

The most striking difference between the Vedic and Christian traditions is the attitude towards images and sculptures of God, which in Christianity are called idols with a clearly negative connotation. And in India, on the contrary, they are worshiped with genuine devotion. Is the worship of the forms of God idolatry? Why does the Vedas encourage it, but the Bible does not seem to approve of it?

In the chapter Exodus, for example, it is said: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Those. one cannot worship on the same level God and other powerful personalities, of which there are many in the universe.

The ban on worshiping the forms of the demigods does not mean that the Supreme also has no forms or that she cannot be worshiped.

The very attitude “Thou shalt have no other gods before my face” implies that God has a face. And that means everything else. Those. it has a form. And there are no prohibitions on worshiping the form of the Almighty in the Bible. But those who do not have a clear understanding and do not distinguish the Supreme Personality of Godhead from his deputies, ministers, from all these demigods, have written off the worship of Krishna or Vishnu and his various incarnations customary in India as idolatry. Those. the usual maximalism worked - the child was thrown out with the water. This point is very important to understand.

Why is it called idolatry some form of worship? This is not at all because God has no forms and because she cannot be worshiped, but because people do not distinguish the forms of the Supreme from the forms of the demigods. That's the whole point. The biblical prohibition says: "Do not make for yourself an idol and no image of what is in the sky above, what is on the earth below, and what is in the water below the earth." Those. one should not create idols or idols from the whole range of material forms that inhabit water, sky and earth. However, the images of God described in the Vedas are completely different from the forms of this world. They have some unique color, like Krishna's color is so dark blue. We don't meet people of that color here. Either four arms, or some unusual form, like [Jagannath's] form, for example. Or some other forms that have absolutely no analogues in this material world.

Therefore, ruling the forms of God in this world and creating them is not a violation of this prohibition: "Do not make yourself an idol". Because here again I say: "Do not make for yourself an idol, no image of what is in the sky above, what is on the earth below, or what is in the water below the earth." God is above the sky and beyond all this earth, water, and so on. He is beyond this material world. But, unfortunately, people have very limited ideas, and they tend to project their material ideas about the form onto the spiritual form of God. An idol, or idol, is literally a "substitute for God." Like, for example, people worship some screen stars or pop stars, but this term is not applicable to the form that corresponds to the scriptures. Those. idol, idol, it does not mean that the form of God can be called an idol. So worshiping the form of God is not idolatry.

Idolaters are those who put some famous person or worldly thing in the place of God. As for God, if he is present in every atom of his creation, then why is it impossible to create the form of God, which is the standard of harmony, from these atoms, each of which contains God. What is the problem? Indeed, for example, in the same Christianity there are miraculous icons, crosses with a crucifix, holy places and so on - these are some kind of material manifestations. But why are they worshiped, what is their peculiarity? Their peculiarity is that they are marked by the presence of spiritual energy coming from God - “holy water” or something else, a sacred crucifix, or a holy place to which people go. Why is it sacred? Why did this matter suddenly become sanctified? Because God was there. Or he descended to this place, this water or this symbol.

The same thing happens when we worship the form of God created from material elements to make it easier for us to focus on it. At the same time, it cannot be said that we liken the form of God to our own, that supposedly this is all an anthropomorphic model. What is "Anthropos" - a man, he creates God in his own image. No. After all, as it is said in the Bible, we are created in the image and likeness of God, and not he in ours. God is not just a form. This is the original form. Those. it is a standard, model or archetype, from which all other forms have already gone. Everything in this world has a form, because he, as the source of everything, also has a form. The body, for example, our outer physical body, has a form, because the soul has a form. If the soul had no form. Even our outer body would have no form. And the soul has form because it is a particle of God, the Supreme Soul. Those. everything has a form, just because God has a form. Since he is an archetype, i.e. source of energy from which everything else comes.

Although in the Bible we do not find a detailed description of the form of God, as is given in the Vedas, nevertheless, some fragments of his personality are also reflected there. For example, in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Yahweh, one of the biblical names of the Almighty, is depicted wearing a helmet of salvation, just like Vishnu, described in the Vedas. By the way, one of the names of Vishnu is [Yage], who accepts all offerings. This [Yage] is very similar to the Old Testament name Yahweh. And there, both have a helmet described. The voice of Yahweh, according to the testimony of the Bible, is like thunder. And in the 4th song [Shmabagvat] it is also said that the voice of Vishnu is described as resembling the sounds of thunder. The Old Testament Yahweh has a rod and shield, while Vishnu is described as having a mace and a shield. Also very similar symbolism.

Yahweh sends out fire to incinerate enemies, and Vishnu sends out his "fiery disc" chakra that burns everything in its path. Some researchers also find a commonality between the Cherubim, who is the carrier of Yahweh, and the divine bird Garuda, who is the carrier of Lord Vishnu. So the idea arises directly that Yahweh and Vishnu are one person. Painfully many parallels, many similar moments.

But the fundamental difference is that the Vedas prescribe regular worship of the form of God, while the Bible does not. And the reason for this lies in the fact that a person can receive a real spiritual benefit from this process only if he has a sufficiently high level of consciousness and culture. That's because not everyone can worship the form of God.

Otherwise, a misunderstanding of how a completely spiritual God can manifest through the material elements will simply lead to a wrong attitude towards his images or sculptures. And as a result of this, a person will simply commit unconscious insults to the form of God and will begin to degrade, and not progress. Thus, it turns out that what is medicine for some is poison for others. That is, look, for some, worshiping the form of God is beneficial, for those who do not really understand these issues, on the contrary, you can’t do it, so some traditions say that God has no forms, no worship is needed and etc. And those who nevertheless accuse the followers of the Vedas of idolatry may remember that before Moses God appeared in the form of a burning bush. So there is a form. Is it better to worship the burning bush? If he can manifest himself through a burning bush, then with great pleasure he will manifest himself in his true form, in the original form, which is described in the Vedas.

And the fact that the Vedic civilization in biblical times was at a much higher level of culture than the peoples described in the Old Testament, there is even nothing to say here. The very commandments that the Lord gave to Moses on Mount Sinai already speak of the low level of consciousness of the people to whom this message was intended. Imagine, does a truly cultured person need such prohibitions as: “do not kill”, “do not steal”, “do not bear false witness”, “do not commit adultery”. Cultural people don't do that. Those. it is obvious that these vices were then very common in those places, since it was necessary to say that this should not be done. So it was widespread.

However, the Vedic civilization of India maintained a high level of morality and social stability, culture, including the culture of temple worship until the 15th-16th centuries. AD, when the Muslims partially conquered North and Central India and destroyed many Vedic temples under the same pretext, under the slogan of combating idolatry.

But regardless, India remains a country where the number of temples exceeds the number of temples in all other countries of the world combined. Moreover, in every temple there is always some deity, some form, on the altar, which is worshiped every day. Serving God in this form, a person develops divine qualities in himself according to the principle “with whom you behave, from that you will gain.” In front of each temple, ready-made flower garlands, fruits, and incense are sold, which can be bought and brought to the temple, offered to the deity, and then taken away or distributed to someone in the form of consecrated food or illuminated garland flowers.

Thus, a person learns to serve God concretely, and not just in words. That is, the form of God helps us to make love for God active, not passive. Those. it's not just a feeling. It is a feeling that is expressed in activity. Otherwise, this ephemeral feeling, not fueled by specific activity, quickly fades away. Just as in the West almost every home has either a cat or a dog that is fed every day, so in India, even in the poorest homes, there is always an altar with a deity that is served every day, even by the simplest standard. The altar in the house is like a window to the spiritual world. And through it we can daily consecrate our food, which gives it a completely different quality.

I have already said that shooting consecrated food on the altar through a special [Kirlian] camera shows how the aura of consecrated food changes and it literally starts to glow. Here is the [idol-sacrificial] food that these, so to speak, iconoclasts are talking about, i.e. people who do not recognize icons even in Christianity, and even more so in other traditions, do not recognize the existence of forms. Those. just practice. Experience shows that this food really radiates light.

And when a person eats it, then what's the difference when a person eats consecrated food - not consecrated, it it can be seen in his mind, it can be seen in his behavior At once.

One of the most pressing issues of our time is the dialogue of religions. Otherwise, people tend to “cook” in their subculture, by default perceiving the bearers of another tradition as ideological enemies. And when certain historical circumstances coincide, as you know, war is declared on enemies. This dialogue of religions is hindered by the so-called “jealousy of faith”, which creates in a representative of any confession a sense of superiority over others and a sense of a monopoly on the truth. As a rule, this comes from a low level of culture, a desire to be right always and in everything, and a lack of knowledge.

Acting within my sphere of influence, I will try to make up for this last shortcoming, and perhaps it will help someone to look at the situation through the prism of knowledge, and not prejudice.

I already wrote about the reasons for the existence of various religions in an article "Why is there one God, but many religions?" Therefore, this time we will simply try to conduct a comparative analysis of the Vedic tradition and Christianity.

This topic is very relevant for us, because. at one time, Christianity replaced Vedism in Russia, which degenerated into paganism. And now the same Vedic tradition is being revived in our country. It is pointless to talk about what is more traditional for us, because. any culture at some point is an innovation and only after a few generations turns into something familiar and generally accepted. The cyclical nature of history cannot be stopped, and therefore, as you know, everything returns to normal.

It is incorrect to evaluate one tradition in terms of another, because in this case, subjectivity cannot be avoided. Given this, I (being a follower of the Vedas) will try to stand in the process of this analysis on the positions of knowledge and real facts, and not on the position of believing that ours is always better, simply because it is ours.

If we start from the generally accepted history, the Vedic tradition is much older than Christianity, but at the same time it has retained its integrity, at least in India.

As for Christianity, in just two thousand years of its history, it has been divided into more than two thousand different currents. This indicates the absence of a mechanism for preserving tradition and transferring spiritual knowledge. If this trend of fragmentation continues, then the integrity of the Christian doctrine will be completely lost, and it will be very difficult for future generations to understand what its essence is.

Usually Christianity proclaims the Bible as the only authoritative scripture, but if you are careful, the 2nd Epistle to Timothy from the Apostle Paul says:

"All scriptures are given by divine inspiration and auspicious for study."

And in the apocryphal gospel "The Book of the Angel of Mormon" God says:

"Don't you know that there is more than one nation?

Don't you know that I am your Lord, created all people and remember even those who live on the islands?

Don't you know that I rule both in heaven and under the earth and carry My word to all the children of men, to all the nations of the earth?

I say one word to all nations.

However, you should not think that if I have spoken one word, I cannot pronounce another, for My work is not yet finished and it will not end until the end of mankind, and therefore, having a Bible, you cannot think that it contains all My words. .

Likewise, you cannot think that I did not inspire you to write more than that.

I command all people in the East and in the West, and in the North and in the South and on the islands in the sea.

And I command them to write the words that I dictate to them.

And by the books that have been written I will judge the world...

Quotations like these give the open-minded Christian a chance to accept the authority of other scriptures. Moreover, Christ himself admitted the incompleteness of his teaching:

"I have much more to say, but do not contain it, for your hearts are hard" (John 16:12).

That is, it unequivocally follows from this that there is some kind of secret knowledge that Christ did not open because of the unpreparedness of his disciples.

He lamented it like this:

"If I speak of earthly things and do not believe, how will you believe me when I speak of heavenly things?" (John 3.12).

However, without going into these esoteric moments for now, let's compare some of the common points of the two spiritual traditions and try to clear up the contradictions.

Soul and body

In any tradition, the very beginning of spiritual life is marked by the understanding that in addition to the mortal shell of the body there is an eternal soul, the sign of which is the individual consciousness.

How is this fundamental understanding expressed in the Vedas and in the Bible?

The gospel says:

"The spirit is willing (gives life), but the flesh is weak." "By dwelling in the body, we are removed from God."

Despite such unequivocal statements about the difference between the soul and the body, we observe that in practice the followers of Christianity quite often identify themselves with the body and, in particular, with nationality.

But to be on the spiritual level means to be on the level of the soul, which is different from the body and its nationality. Such an understanding immediately removes many artificial problems that are born from the identification of the soul with the body, nationality and, accordingly, lead to the problems of nationalism and religious intolerance, which is based not on spiritual understanding, but on the false premise that the soul and body are one. and also.

Sometimes the Old Testament saying that the soul is blood is given. But if the soul were blood, why then does the New Testament say that

"...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and corruption does not inherit incorruption"?

If the soul is really blood, then why can't blood inherit the Kingdom of God?

Obviously, the blood is permeated with the consciousness of the soul, like all other substances of the body, but at the time of death, the blood remains in the body, and the soul leaves it. Therefore, this issue is resolved at the level of common sense.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, the spirit and the body are again opposed to each other as fundamentally different substances:

"The flesh desires the opposite of the spirit, and the spirit desires the opposite of the flesh. Walk in the spirit, and you will never fulfill the desires of the flesh."

As for the Vedas, they are literally full of statements about the difference between the soul and the body:

"Active senses are superior to dead matter; mind is superior to feelings; intelligence is superior to mind; and soul is superior to intelligence" (Bhagavad-gita, 3.42).

"The Supreme Lord directs the wanderings of the living entities (souls) who are in the bodies, as in machines made of material energy" (Bhagavad-gita, 18.61).

reincarnation

So, on the first point about the difference between the soul and the body, there is complete agreement in the texts of both traditions. From this understanding follows the next important aspect of spiritual knowledge - reincarnation. Indeed, if the body is temporary and the soul is eternal, what happens to it at the moment of leaving the body, if it has not yet reached spiritual maturity and is not ready to return to God?

Modern Christianity does not officially accept the idea of ​​reincarnation., But it was not always so. The idea of ​​the rebirth of the soul was alive in Christianity until the 5th Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church in Constantinople in the 6th century AD. The reasons for the cancellation are the decree of the Pope under pressure from Emperor Justinian. When Christianity, after several centuries of persecution, became the official religion of the Roman Empire, they decided to make it more socially acceptable. The ideologues of those times believed that if people know that they have more than one life, they can relax. In this sense, the concept of "one-time life" seemed more practical to them, after which either eternal hell or eternal paradise comes. As conceived by politicians, this was to encourage people to be more law-abiding. Therefore, many texts with the idea of ​​rebirth were removed from the Bible.

But even from some of the remaining indirect phrases, one can judge that the followers of Christ were familiar with the idea of ​​reincarnation. Once, when the disciples, together with Jesus, met a blind man, they asked: for whose sins was he punished with congenital blindness - for his own or for the sins of his parents? The question itself implies that some sins were committed before the birth of the soul in this body. That is, it means that the soul had previously lived in some other body, and in this new body it reaps the fruits of its deeds in a past life. If Christ had considered such ideas as heresy, he would have immediately refuted them. However, he did not do this and simply restored his sight, saying that this man was born blind, so that the works of the Lord would be done on him.

One of the famous early Christian theologians, Origen, spoke openly about reincarnation. Where did he get these ideas from, if not from the first versions of the Gospel? And Thomas Aquinas in his treatise "Summa Theologica" speaks of the ability of the soul to plunge into the lower forms of life (gravitas) and rise into higher bodies (levitas). Many early Christians accepted reincarnation because it explains the diversity of life forms, as well as many controversial issues that cannot be explained otherwise.

For example: why do bad things happen to good people, while outright rascals thrive? It is also well known that John the Baptist was considered the reincarnation of the Old Testament prophet Elijah.

As for the Vedas, it speaks of the existence in this universe 8 million 400 thousand life forms or body types which provide the soul with the opportunity to experience in different bodies the whole variety of sensory experience. This is similar to how one and the same person can change into different cars, planes, steamships, submarines, etc., and thanks to this, he enjoys movement in different elements (earth, water, air).

According to the Vedas, reincarnation is a kind of mechanism that guarantees us the fulfillment of all our desires, for which life in one body is clearly not enough.

Moreover, the Vedas describe reincarnation as a continuous process that is happening to each of us right now.

"Just as the soul passes from the body of a child into the body of a young man, and then into the body of an old man, so at the time of death it passes into a new body. Such changes do not disturb one who has realized his spiritual nature" (Bhagavad-gita, 2.13) .

From the point of view of physiology, thanks to metabolism, all the cells of the body are completely renewed in seven years, and every seven years we find ourselves in a body created from new elements. It is called internal reincarnation within one body.

And reincarnation as a process of transition from one body to another is just a natural continuation of internal reincarnation.

Another quote reads:

"Just as a person puts on new clothes, throwing off the old ones, so the soul gets a new body, throwing off the old and useless" (Bhagavad-gita, 2.22).

From our direct experience, the most obvious illustration of reincarnation is the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly.

In addition, there is a custom among the people (although now almost forgotten) to perform a symbolic cutting ceremony for a newborn baby. Between the arms and between the legs he is quickly held with a knife. The idea is that the hands and feet of the deceased person are tied.

All processes that occur with the physical body affect the subtle body. Therefore, these symbolic fetters remain on the subtle body of a person, which is seen by some psychics. So that these thin fetters do not interfere with a person in a new body, they are cut. The very tradition of cutting the fetters of an infant implies that this soul has already lived in another body.

Attitude towards the body

Continuing the comparative analysis of the Vedic tradition and Christianity, let us turn to a curious analogy in which the human body is compared to a temple.

"Don't you know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit living in you, which you have from God and you are not your own. Therefore glorify God in your bodies and in your souls, which are God's."

"As long as I am in this bodily temple, I will remind you (of Christ), knowing that I must soon leave my temple."

The Vedas also describe the body as a temple, where the heart acts as a symbolic altar, on which the Supreme resides in the form of the Superconsciousness (Holy Spirit in Christianity), and next to it is the soul is the source of individual consciousness.

In the Bhagavad-gita (13.23) it is said as follows:

"In this body (besides the soul) there is also another person - the Supreme Lord, who observes and permits and is called the Supreme Intelligence."

What makes a temple a temple and what fundamentally distinguishes it from an ordinary building, except for architectural features? It is obvious that in the temple there is one or another symbol of God, as well as an atmosphere of service to Him. And now it turns out that wherever we are, first of all we are in the temple of the body!

Understanding the body as a temple should fundamentally change our attitude towards our lives. In the temple, we usually behave differently than in other places. There we try to control our thoughts and speech; dirt is not brought to the temple, and therefore we should not bring products defiled by violence (meat) into the temple of our body. But modern man has turned his body from a temple into a dump, into a walking cemetery. Now it becomes clear why God is not very pleased to manifest Himself in such bodies and why most people do not feel His presence in the heart.

As for the gospel phrase

"we are not our own, but the essence of God",

this is also fully consistent with the statement of the Bhagavad-gita (4.35):

"...through perfect knowledge, you will understand that all living beings are in the Supreme and belong to Him."

This indicates our original position as parts of God. And if we know where we came from, then it is obvious where we need to return. Thus, the meaning and purpose of life become unambiguous.

From all this follows the priority of the spiritual. That is why the Sermon on the Mount says:

"First seek the kingdom of God - the rest will be added. Who among you by your own efforts will add even a cubit to your height? Even the lilies of the field dress better than King Solomon, although they do not work. Birds and animals all have. What are you afraid of, little faith?" .

Elsewhere in the Gospel it says:

"What is the use of gaining the whole world and losing your soul?"

Similar ideas about the paramount importance of spiritual development also run through the Vedas:

“One must strive for the goal that lies beyond the universe ... As for material happiness, it itself comes in its own time, just as misfortune itself comes, although we do not call it” (Srimad-Bhagavatam, 1.6.18).

But to a modern person, such calls may seem the highest form of irresponsibility under the guise of spirituality. Why? Because, firstly, people do not know anything about the non-physical reality for the soul; and secondly, they do not think that now they are able to somehow influence their spiritual future, and live according to the principle "let it be".

But in the same Sermon on the Mount it says:

"...store your riches in Heaven, for where your wealth is, there your heart will be also."

The Bhagavad-gita says the same thing in other words:

"What state of being a person remembers at the moment of death, that state he reaches after death."

As you know, at the moment of death (even if death apparently occurs in an unconscious state), a person remembers the most precious thing to which he was most attached. If we develop a spiritual taste and attachment to God during this life, at the moment of death this will determine our spiritual future. If a person is not spiritually developed, he still has material desires, because of which he remains “for the second year”, that is, he again receives a material body. And so on until the soul matures and passes its examination for spiritual maturity.

Love for God

What does it mean to live a spiritual life?

The Gospel says this about it:

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God."

In the Bhagavad-gita (9.27), three thousand years before the advent of Christ, Krishna said the same thing almost word for word:

"Whatever you do; whatever you eat; whatever you offer or give away, and whatever penance you go through, do it as an offering to Me."

Thus, by dedicating our activities to God, we receive His blessings and awaken the spiritual love for Him dormant in our hearts.

In the words of Jesus himself:

"It is more blessed to give than to receive."

It means that the experience of spiritual service is fundamentally different from the material one. In serving God, love for Him is practically manifested. "Just as a body without a spirit is dead, so faith without deed is dead"- a well-known quotation from the Gospel confirms this.

Krishna in the Vedas deciphers this thought in even more detail:

"Think of Me, become My servant, pay homage to Me and worship Me. Thus, fully immersed in Me, you will surely come to Me" (Bhagavad-gita, 9.34).

The point is that if we are not serving God, then we are serving someone else. we cannot serve. If it seems to a person that he does not serve anyone, then he serves his feelings, fulfilling all their whims.

However, there are other ideas about ministry in the Gospel:

"The Lord does not live in man-made temples and does not need the service of human hands."

Some adepts cling to this phrase and say that it is not necessary to serve God. But this phrase simply speaks of God's independence from our ministry. He is self-sufficient and does not need our service, but we need it, because otherwise we will serve the illusions of this world.

If between us and Him there is no connecting thread of service, what then is love manifested in? Love is unthinkable without service.

It is natural that not every activity can be dedicated to God. It is impossible to dedicate to Him the drug business (including the manufacture and sale of alcohol and cigarettes) or the activity that destroys the environment (God's creation) under the guise of industrial needs.

As for the assertion that "The Lord does not live in man-made temples..." it must somehow be reconciled with His all-pervading nature.

Indeed, if God is everywhere, then why not in the temple? It is not difficult to understand this seeming contradiction with a simple example. The sun shines both at the equator and at the north pole, but the strength of its heat is manifested differently there. Therefore, we can say that in terms of heat, the sun is practically absent in the north. In the same way, God, like sunlight, penetrates everywhere, but personally He is more manifest where He is loved and served. If temple services are held without sincere faith and feeling, the Lord does not appear there, and in this sense He is not in the temple.

It was this idea that formed the basis of the Protestant movement when they moved away from the Catholic Church, believing that there the form supplanted the content. But if people serve God with love and devotion, He will manifest in any place, be it a temple or just a sincere heart.

This leads to the following parallel - about the purpose of spiritual life. It does not consist at all in the salvation of the soul and not in the development of mystical powers or spiritual knowledge. All these benefits are naturally acquired by those who have developed selfless love for God.

Here is what the Gospel says about it:

“If I speak in human and angelic tongues, but I don’t have love, I’m ringing brass ... If I have the gift of prophecy and know all the secrets and have all knowledge and all faith, so that I can move mountains, but I don’t have love, I’m nothing. And if I give away all my possessions and give my body to be burned, and I do not have love, there is no use in that.

The Bhagavad Gita (8.28) also speaks of the paramount importance of loving God:

“One who has entered the path of loving devotional service to God is not deprived of the results obtained from studying the Vedas, performing rituals and austerities, giving alms, philosophical studies or pious activities. abode".

Describing the hierarchy of people striving for perfection, Krishna says:

"A yogi is higher than an ascetic, a philosopher, a generous donor ... and of all yogis, the one who is connected with Me with ardent love is higher than all" (Bhagavad-gita, 6.46-47).

So, with the love of God decided. Both traditions put her first.

Love for your neighbor

What about love for your neighbor? Although Christianity postulates love of one's neighbor as the second most important commandment, there are phrases in the Gospel that seem to contradict this.

For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says:

"The enemies of a man are his household. And whoever leaves home, or brothers, or sisters, or father and mother, or wife, or children, or lands for the sake of My name, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life!" At the very end of the Bhagavad Gita (18.66)

Krishna also makes a similar call:

"Give up all worldly duties and simply surrender to Me. I will protect you from all the consequences of your sins. Do not be afraid.".

It is obvious that both of these quotes urge us to abruptly drop everything and, without wasting time on worldly fuss, plunge into spiritual practice. To whom are such appeals addressed, and how does this agree with love for one's neighbor?

Those who are internally ready for this should do just that. If there were no examples of such spiritual heroes-saints, we would never even think about the eternal. It is in their pure and uncompromising preaching that their love for their neighbor lies. But not everyone has such inner maturity. Therefore, this level of renunciation must be approached gradually.

In this regard, the Holy Scriptures speak of another, gradual path to God, which implies a harmonious relationship with loved ones ( "Honor your father and mother"), but at the same time a person should not forget about the highest goal.

The Vedas say this about this integrated approach:

"Bodily austerity consists in worshiping the Supreme, the spiritual master, brahmanas (priests), elders (such as father and mother), as well as purity, simplicity, abstinence and non-violence" (Bhagavad-gita 17.14).

This second gradual path of exaltation implies love of neighbor in a more familiar sense to us. The point is that the soul cannot and should not live without love, because it is the nature of the soul. Love for God is the culmination of the ability to love, and love for your neighbor is where we all begin.

Gradual attachment to God begins to grow in the soul when one practices the process of chanting His Holy Names. This is the simplest and most powerful form of spiritual service in our age.

The Epistle to the Romans says: "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved", and the Epistle to the Hebrews says: "Therefore, let us offer unceasingly to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of a mouth that glorifies His Name." The Psalter instructs: "Praise the name of the Lord from sunrise to sunset with drums and cymbals."

And in the Vedic text Brihan Naradiya Purana it is said:

"In this age of enmity and hypocrisy, there is only one way of spiritual rebirth - chanting the Holy Name of the Lord. There is no other way. There is no other way. There is no other way."

Repetition three times emphasizes the importance of what has been said in order to draw special attention to it.

But the practice is preceded by faith or interest in the spiritual life, which awakens in the heart of a person under the influence of beneficial communication. Both traditions similarly describe this process. The Gospel says this about it: "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God."

That is, faith is a kind of response from the depths of the soul, which occurs when the soul is stimulated from the outside with spiritual information. If there was nothing spiritual inside, then there would be no response either. This is similar to how the salivary glands begin to produce saliva under the influence of appropriate smells or tastes.

In this regard, the Vedas say that deep in the soul or in the very core of our consciousness there is already spiritual knowledge and love for God. It is like a thin string that comes into resonance when it comes into contact with the spiritual vibration from outside. This happens only if the soul is not strongly constrained by the consequences of negative activities in the past. Otherwise, this resonance does not arise for the time being, and faith, as a hope for a better future, having no spiritual outlet, rushes in the opposite direction. It turns into an interest in material progress. But a person cannot live completely without faith, because. it is the very basis of our existence. It just changes its vector.

Sometimes materialistically minded people make fun of believers as if they were deluded. However, the experience of material life at every step shows us the unfoundedness of our hopes and expectations, or, at best, the temporary and unstable nature of our worldly successes. At the same time, people continue to believe in the path of material development as the only true one. Isn't this blind faith in the impossible?

Material world

Now consider the parallels in the ideas about the material world. Both traditions consider the universe to be a closed sphere, within which there are three worlds or three levels of planetary systems. The Vedas call the universe the term " brahmanda" (luminous egg), which is covered with seven layers of natural primary elements (earth, water, fire, air, space, etc.)

In the Old Testament in the Book of Genesis, when describing the creation of the world, it says: "...and God called the firmament heaven." This means that the inner space of the universe is limited by a hard shell. What now seems to us the naivete of a man of the Old Testament times, in fact, may well turn out to be our own naivety in the matter of perceiving the world. There is no science more indefinite than cosmology, in which forty different theories argue among themselves, sometimes asserting directly opposite concepts.

Most scientists are sure that the cosmos is an open system that has no boundaries, but recently the concept has appeared that the cosmos is still closed and not as big as we think. This is consistent with both the Vedic and Christian traditions. The Epistle to the Romans also says: "The voice of the prophets went through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." This again implies that, according to the Christian tradition, the universe has limits.

Hebrews 1.6 also says that God the Father introduces the Firstborn (Christ) into the universe. It means that Christ came from outside the universe. By the way, in the Vedas, for all divine incarnations in this world, the term "avatara" is used, which literally means "crossing the boundaries of matter", i.e. who came to our closed world from the spiritual reality.

As regards the "three worlds" within the universe, the Gospel says in this connection:

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld."

These three levels of being heavenly, earthly and underworld- in the Vedas they correspond to the three main forces of material nature: goodness, passion and ignorance.

The worlds of heaven are under the influence of power goodness, and their inhabitants live there in their subtle bodies, without physical shells. They do not need, like us, to engage in economic activities for the sake of maintenance. The meaning of their life is immersion in the world of emotions and ideas at the astral level of being. The middle world is a world of passion, where we are covered with physical bodies and are forced to devote most of our time to maintaining these bodies and fighting for survival, and we used to call the facilitation of this struggle material progress.

At the level passions in us there is a struggle between the inner spiritual principle and the impulses of the flesh.

Worlds hell are planets under the influence of the power of ignorance. Ignorance there manifests itself in the fact that they are completely unaware of their spiritual nature and are completely immersed in technocracy. That is, unlike people who rush between the spiritual and the material, the inhabitants of the lower worlds are incorrigible materialists. Their success is technical achievements.

If earlier the earth, as a planet of the middle level, was more under the influence of higher worlds, and in the legends of different peoples we find descriptions of contacts with higher beings or angels, now the earth has been dominated by lower civilizations that turn people away from spirituality, giving technical toys in return . It is from the lower worlds that UFOs fly with their secret missions. Under their influence, the people of the earth imagine the future as full robotization and mechanization.

In contrast to this "technocratic paradise", the spiritual reality is depicted in the Holy Scriptures as free from all mechanisms, since there everyone has perfect spiritual bodies, and all desires are fulfilled from one thought. There are no strict laws of the material world that limit our freedom. Here we are forced to come up with different mechanisms to overcome the pressure of matter.

So, on the one hand, the Gospel says that "The kingdom of God is within us and comes implicitly", that is, it is our inner spiritual state, and on the other hand, in "Revelation" a specific description of the city of God is given.

Confirmation that the spiritual world is not just our subjective state, is the statement of Christ: "There are many mansions in my Father's house."

The Vedas also confirm the multi-layered structure of the spiritual world. It says that the Lord in His various incarnations resides in different spheres of ultimate reality and His various forms give rise to different moods and types of worship to Him.

This is the root cause of the existence of various religions in this world. That is, we can say that just as there are different countries with different cultures, so in the spiritual world there is diversity, but there is no enmity between the inhabitants of different spheres of spiritual existence.

Everyone understands that God is one, but everyone has different individual traits and therefore serve different incarnations of God. The unity of understanding softens the variety of emotions and attitudes towards God. Using this rule, we can bring all the religions of the world to a common denominator, a single spiritual knowledge, which is the foundation of religion. In this case, the diversity of external features will not confuse representatives of different traditions.

For example, the Vedas talk about the majesty, power and all-pervading nature of God, and in this aspect He is called Vishnu(Old Slavic Supreme- standing above all). People who are more attracted to these particular features of God approach Him in a spirit of reverence and reverence. Therefore, they tend to worship the majestic four-armed form of Vishnu, as it gives them a corresponding humility. In addition, the same Vishnu has many different forms that attract different souls.

Those who tend to see God not so much as a powerful boss or father, but rather as a friend, son, or even lover, are more likely to be attracted krishna, which encourages us to spontaneous love relationships without much distance between us and Him. Formally, these somewhat different forms of worship can be called different currents within the same religion. But, in fact, there is no difference between Krishna and the forms of Vishnu, because it is the same person. Just Vishnu is God" at work", a Krishna is God" Houses".

So, belief in the superiority of one's own tradition and emotional attachment to a particular image of God is what separates people. And knowledge, which gives the concept of unity in diversity and diversity in unity, is what unites. Therefore, the foundation of religion should be spiritual knowledge, and not just faith based on nationality.

When describing the city of God in the Gospel it says:

"He has no need of the sun or the moon for his illumination, for the glory of God has sanctified him."

And in the Bhagavad-gita (15.6) Krishna says:

"This heavenly abode of mine is not sanctified by the sun, or by the moon, or by any other source of light."

This means that the spiritual world has a self-luminous nature and does not need external sources of light.

Spiritual reality differs from ours also in the course of time. The Gospel says this about it:

"With the Lord one day is like a thousand years."

And in the Bhagavad-gita (8.16) it is said about the correlation of the time of people and the upper world:

"A thousand epochs combined constitute one day of Brahma (the secondary creator)."

Although Brahma is not supreme, but the general principle in this case is clear: what in our perception seems to be an entire era, is perceived above as an instant.

But what does the Scriptures say about God himself? The gospel is not very specific about Him:

"The only one who has immortality, who lives in an impregnable light, which none of the people has seen and cannot see. To him is honor and power eternal. Amen!"

Although this statement is true, it is not completely exhaustive, as describes our limitations rather than His infinity. Indeed, human perception is programmed for limited space-time characteristics, and God is clearly beyond our spectrum of perception.

However, He can reveal Himself to us if we become worthy of it. As the Vedic proverb says: "If you want to see the king, it will not be easy. But if the king wants to see you, then you will also see Him without difficulty."

Therefore, the Vedas wisely recommend: "Don't try to see God, but live in such a way that He notices you." However, the sincere desire to see God (not out of sports interest, but for the sake of inspiration) is not vicious, and therefore one of the Vedic prayers "Isopanishad" says: "O my Lord, please remove this dazzling effulgence from You and reveal Your true face to me."

Thus, the divine light or enlightenment, which many take to be the highest goal of spiritual life, is in fact only the initial stage of understanding God, because. behind this bright light is its source, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Idolatry

And so we can see that there is a lot in common between the Vedic and Christian traditions. But there are some obvious differences and reasons for these differences.

The most striking difference is the attitude towards images and sculptures of God, which in Christianity are called idols with obvious negative connotations, but in India they are worshiped with genuine devotion.

Is the worship of the forms of God idolatry? Why does the Vedas encourage it, but the Bible does not seem to approve of it?

The reason why Christians condemn the worship of statues of God is because of some statements from the Old Testament on this subject.

Until this point is properly understood, it will be difficult to understand all other aspects of the spiritual life. This is where all the differences in philosophy begin.

If unjustified violence is justified, hardening of the heart occurs, and this contradicts the main principle of spiritual life - purification and softening of the heart. Love cannot live in a hard heart.

So, violence is sometimes unavoidable and necessary, but not in matters of nutrition. The early Christians were mostly vegetarians. This tradition began to degenerate around the beginning of the 4th century AD under the pressure of Emperor Constantine. Since the Roman Empire decided to make Christianity the state religion, it had to become as socially acceptable as possible, and therefore the standards began to be lowered by order. But since the spiritual process is a technology, no elements can be thrown out of it, otherwise it will stop working. Therefore, Christianity itself suffered the most internally from this and other editions.

Despite all these arguments, someone may object with the well-known phrase: "It doesn't matter what goes in, it matters what comes out..." Well then let him try to eat what comes out, and it will immediately become clear that, it turns out, it is important, "what goes in."

Relationship between Jesus Christ and Krishna

Now it is necessary to understand the relationship between Jesus Christ and Krishna. These names are surprisingly similar (in Greek, Christ sounds like Christus), and this is not accidental. The Vedas unanimously proclaim Krishna or Vishnu (the aspect of Krishna's power) as the Supreme Lord.

In the Bhagavad-gita (9.17) He Himself says about Himself:

"I am the father and mother of this universe. I am the support and progenitor. I am the goal of knowledge. I am the one who purifies. I am the syllable OM. I am also the source of the four Vedas."

What is the position of Christ? He himself repeatedly called himself the son of God, but in the Gospel of John (10.30) he speaks of himself as follows: "I and the Father are one."

Does this mean that Christ is God the Father Himself? If so, why in the same chapter (John 14:28) did he say: "My father is greater than me"?

There will be no contradictions if we correctly understand the relationship between God and His various incarnations. Christ himself explains all this wonderfully (John 14:10): "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak of Myself. The Father who is in Me does the works".

According to the Vedas, Christ belongs to the category of Shakti-avesha avatars - living beings who are authorized by God for a specific mission and endowed with supernatural energy for this. Therefore, they are simultaneously one with God in the sense of a common cause, but they are different from Him, remaining His particles. It is like the sun, which is both one with its rays and distinct from them.

The coming of Jesus (Isha) is predicted in the Vedic text "Bhavishya Purana":

"At the beginning of the Kali Yuga (our era), the holy Isha-putra (son of God) and the son of Ku-mari (virgin Mary) will come and preach the message of God to the west of the Indus River in the land of barbarians. He will be crucified, but will rise again."

In conclusion of this topic, it must be said that each tradition has a concept of its exclusivity. This is quite natural, because. there are not many religions, but there are only different versions of a single spiritual path, colored by the national and linguistic characteristics of different peoples.

However, on the surface, it looks like the religions are vying with each other for supremacy.

Christians will say in the words of Jesus:

"No one comes to the Father except through Me."

The followers of the Vedas will say in the words of Krishna:

"Those who worship other gods with faith actually worship Me alone, but they do it in a wrong way" (Bhagavad-gita, 9.23).

There is no need to talk about the superiority of this or that tradition, because. God in the heart directs the soul to learn according to its desires and level.

There are no differences in the basis of both teachings: There is one God; the soul is His particle; there is an eternal spiritual world and a temporary material world. The way to move into the highest reality is the purification of the soul and attachment to God. Everything else is a purely external specificity of different traditions.

Tushkin Vasily Rurikovich

The Vedas are the most ancient scriptures. The word "Veda" in Sanskrit means "knowledge". The Vedas were written down 5000 years ago, and before that they were transmitted orally from teacher to student. This transmission of knowledge is called parampara. The Vedas were transmitted in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the original language in which they were written. Parampara is the Vedic system of transmission of knowledge. Therefore, I do not present my personal opinion here. I'm just passing on eternal knowledge. This knowledge comes from the Absolute source. Vedas also means "truth". They have many sections. The source of Vedic knowledge is the Supreme Lord Himself. He is the Person, the cause of all causes. The source of all knowledge. And this knowledge is eternal, as the Lord himself is eternal.

Now we live in the material world. It has periods of manifestation and non-manifestation. The first living entity that was created in this universe is Lord Brahma. He first received this knowledge from the Supreme Lord through the heart, then passed on to his son Narada Muni. Narada Muni gave it to Srila Vyasadeva. 5,000 years ago, Srila Vyasadeva wrote down this knowledge. This record is the original record of Vedic knowledge. It was divided into 4 sections: Atharva, Sama, Rig, Yajur. Then many explanations were made, commentaries were made, Puranas and Upanishads were compiled.

Vedic knowledge is the truth. The purpose of his presence in this world is so that we can receive him. We have many questions, problems - what to do, where we are going, etc., many mysteries. The Bible says, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." The problem is the lack of truth. The Vedas are knowledge. Knowledge is light. Ignorance is darkness. When we do not have this knowledge, we are in darkness. Our experience in this world can be compared to when the lights are turned off, everything becomes very difficult. Simple things - moving around, finding objects - become very difficult. Therefore, we can understand how valuable it is to know the truth.

There are many truths in the material world. They are relative and conditional. If the conditions are met, then it is true. Absolute truth belongs to another category. Absolute truth is always truth. Some people say that there is no absolute truth. In response, they can be told that what you say, therefore, is also not true.

Some people associate the Vedas with some religion. The Vedas were written down in India. On this planet they appeared in India. Therefore people say they are Indian scriptures. In fact, they are meant for all mankind. This truth is universal for all.

The basis of Vedic understanding is the science of the soul. We often use the word "soul" - soulful music, soulful person, ... What does this mean?

The Vedas say that the question of understanding who we are is one of the most important questions. The most important question. Unfortunately, we almost never ask ourselves this question, we think we know the answer.

When we think about ourselves, we think: I am a man or I am a woman, I am so-and-so old, I am white, Russian, fat or thin, I am a father or mother, a lawyer or a nurse, etc. In fact, this is nothing more than a collection of a number of labels related to our material body. However, the Vedas teach that we ourselves are composed of another, spiritual energy. In essence, we are spirit, not matter. The correct term for this is spirit soul, the individual spirit spark that we are forever. Now we are in this material body, which can be of a certain gender, race, nationality and age. But we are not this body. We are the eternal spirit soul, a spark of God, the Supreme Soul, from whom we are descended.

This is called absolute truth. Relative truth is: "I am in a Russian (or German, American) body." Absolute truth: “I am in this body, soon I will leave it. But I can't stop existing. I have to go somewhere." Where? For example, now I am in a Russian female body and I think: I am a Russian woman; in my next life I will be in a German male body and I will think: I am a German male. But it's not. This is part of the illusion. I am the same person I have always been. But I can change bodies. The process of changing bodies is called reincarnation. This is the Vedic truth.

In the Bhagavad-gita, chapter 2, the Supreme Lord speaks a lot about the soul: “It never happened that I did not exist, or you, or all these kings; and it will never happen that one of us ceases to exist”, “just as a person puts on new clothes, throwing off the old ones, so the soul takes on a new body, leaving the old and useless” ...

If we know the truth, then changing the body does not bother us. There is one thing that we fear the most, and that is death, we strive to avoid it by all means. If the plane crashes, we are very afraid. Therefore, it is important to know that we cannot die. In Bhagavad-gita 2.17, the Lord says: “Know that that which pervades the whole body is indestructible. No one can destroy an immortal soul." The more we identify ourselves with the body, the more we worry. Bhagavad-gita 2.18 says: "The soul is indestructible, immeasurable and eternal, only the body in which it incarnates is subject to death." 2.20: “For the soul there is neither birth nor death. It has never arisen, never arises, and never will arise. She is unborn, eternal, always existing, primordial. It is not destroyed when the body dies." If we only knew that this is true, it would bring us such comfort, convenience, peace. A woman with cancer posted on the Internet on a cancer forum verse 2.20 of the Bhagavad-gita, and it generated a lot of responses about how calm this verse alone brings.

Our life has no beginning and no end. We don't see it that way. We consider a period of time and call it life (for example: he lived a long life - 70 years). In fact, this is just a part of our life. If we understand this, then we will not worry about what to do in this life, but in life in general. People make plans - to study, to get married - for this part of life, but no one thinks about what will happen after death, about a great future. They say: "Oh, just don't talk about it."

The main message of the Vedas is to tell us who we are. Until I know who I am, I cannot properly build my life. The Vedas are compared with mathematics: 2+2=4. Not 3, not 5, not 4 and a half, no, 4. We can't change that. You can have your own opinion that 2 + 2 = 3, but it's still 4. If, while solving a mathematical problem, we make a mistake at the beginning of the solution, then until we correct it by returning to the very beginning, from that moment everything will be wrong , we have to start all over again.

This is not a religion. Sometimes we are asked - is it a religion? It's not religion, it's truth. True for Christians, and for Hindus, and for Buddhists. It doesn't change whether you believe it or not. Therefore, the Vedas are not sectarian, they are the truth of life.

When a person knows that he is a soul, he wants to know how to act in accordance with this understanding: "I am a soul." We know what a person does, what parents or a wife do, what are the duties of a doctor. What does the soul do?

The soul has its eternal duty - sanatana-dharma. According to our financial situation, we have certain responsibilities. The Vedas do not say that they should be neglected. But we must know what is our eternal duty.

There are 2 types of energies - material and spiritual. Spiritual energy is also divided into 2 categories - the highest and the borderline (or lowest). The Supreme Lord is the supreme spiritual energy. Living beings belong to the marginal spiritual energy, i.e. they are spiritual in essence, but are sometimes covered by material energy. Therefore we do not know what we are, we are under the influence of material illusory energy, our vision is covered.

When we are under the influence of spiritual energy, we see exactly who we are. Our eternal position is a servant. In the material world everyone wants to be the master, the manager. Nobody likes to be in the position of a servant. This is considered low and undesirable.

But we cannot change our eternal position. Therefore, despite the fact that we do not want to admit it and think of ourselves as a master, we are still servants. For example, the husband serves the wife, the wife serves the husband, the children the teacher, the teacher the children, and so on. In December, when it is very cold, at 5 am we take our dog out for a walk. If a person does not have a wife or children, he serves his feelings and mind (the mind is also not us, it is another subtle body of ours), for example, he goes to the cinema, communicates with a woman, enjoys food. He obeys the orders of his mind and senses.

Thus, we find ourselves caught in the web of karma. This kind of activity generates reactions. To receive them, we take a new body, a new birth, and start all over again.

Some people think it's great, this world is a good place. But the material world is an undesirable place. It is natural for the soul to desire happiness. By identifying ourselves with the body, we seek our happiness in the happiness of the body. But this does not satisfy. The most miserable people live in Hollywood. What's wrong? Having achieved the American dream, they feel miserable. Why? They do not know the science of the soul.

The disciples asked one yogi, "Are you always happy?" And he said, “No. But when I feel miserable, I know why."

We can feel happiness through our activities. One can feel spiritual happiness by engaging in spiritual activities.

What to do to be happy? We are eternal servants and there is only one Master. This is the Supreme Lord. Often we don't want to think about it. But this is reality. Just as we have a father, the biological father of this body, we have an eternal, original Father, the Lord.

Spirit souls originate in the spiritual world. This is our natural home. But now we are in the material world, which is called a perverted reflection of the spiritual world.

In the spiritual world, the Supreme Lord is the very first. The life of all living beings revolves around the service of the Supreme Lord. They serve Him out of love. Love reigns in the spiritual world.

Love gives us the greatest happiness. To love and be loved is the natural state of the soul. The Beatles sang: "All you need is love ...". But we do not find perfect love relationships in the material world because there is no perfect individual.

There is no place in the spiritual world for the “I am the very first” consciousness. And the task of the Vedas is to awaken us from illusion and return us to the correct state of consciousness.

How to achieve this while still in the material body? – To use all the opportunities that we can enjoy in this world for service. This will bring us spiritual happiness, spiritual satisfaction. The taste and attachment to the happiness of this world will decrease, karma will disappear.

In the course of this activity, the heart is cleansed of material impurities. Love appears, I can really love others, I do not need anything from them in return. My foundation is loving relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

This is the main message of the Vedas. There are many details, guides, explanations, information. And besides, amazing information about the Supreme Lord Himself. Unfortunately, even if we want to know about God, we cannot learn much. To develop our love for someone, we must know about him. The Vedas give detailed information about God. We do not need to invent, create something in our mind. We can know the truth as it is. If we want to know it, we will be led to it. One aspect of the Lord is the Paramatma, the Lord, who resides in the heart of every living being. He knows our heart.

There is happiness beyond this world, it surpasses any happiness in this world. We all want perfection. The perfect world exists. We don't have to try to make this world perfect, all we need is to go to the perfect spiritual world.

We can start this now by starting to develop our loving relationship with the Supreme Lord.

We would like to introduce you to a very accessible and extremely effective process of mantra meditation, which allows us to develop love for God and taste the happiness that we are always looking for. The Supreme Lord Himself has incarnated in this world to give us this process. These are ancient techniques, non-sectarian, free. We will use the ancient mantras received through our disciplic succession:

_____________________________________________________

In 1972, a commission was assembled in Windsor (Ontario), which included well-known experts. They discussed "related to attempts to determine the exact moment of death". Among the members of the commission were world-renowned cardiac surgeon Dr. Wilfred G. Bigelow, Judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario Mr. Edson L. Haynes and Chancellor of the University of Windsor D. Francis Leddy. Dr. Bigelow confirmed the existence and called for systematic research into the soul and where it comes from.

The comments of Dr. Bigelow and other members of the group were later published in the Montreal Gazette. The article attracted attention and he wrote a letter to Dr. Bigelow, offering to get acquainted with the teaching of the Vedas, containing knowledge about the soul, and described how this teaching can be understood in practice. Below is an article from the Newspapers and Srila Prabhupada's response.

Exploration of the soul - fragment from the newspaper

The headline in the Newspaper was: "Heart surgeon wants to know what the soul is."

WINDSOR. A world-renowned Canadian heart surgeon says he believes there is a soul in the body that leaves in the moment, and that theologians should try to learn more about it.

Dr. Wilfred G. Bigelow, Chief of Cardiovascular Surgery at Toronto General Hospital, said that "as a believer in" he believes it is time "to get into the mystery of this phenomenon and find out what it is" .

Bigelow was among the speakers before the Essex Medico-Juridical Society discussing the problems associated with trying to determine the exact moment of death.

This issue has acquired particular relevance in the age of transplantation of the heart and other organs in cases where a donor is unavoidable.

The Canadian Medical Association has developed a commonly accepted definition of death as the moment when the patient is unconscious, does not respond to any stimuli, and the brain waves recorded by the device give a straight line.

The commission also included Edson L. Haynes, Judge of the Supreme Court of the Province of Ontario, and D. Francis Leddy, Rector of the University of Windsor.

Expanding on a theme he raised during the discussion, Bigelow later said in an interview that after thirty-two years of surgical practice, he had no doubts about the existence of the soul.

“Sometimes I had to be present when people pass from the state of life into death. At this time, some mysterious changes are observed.

One of the most noticeable is the sudden disappearance of life or the gleam in the eyes. They become dull and literally lifeless.

It's hard to document what you see. In fact, I don't think it can be documented well enough at all."

Bigelow, world-famous for the world's first "deep freeze" surgery known as hypotherapy and heart valve surgery, said theology and related university disciplines should take over "soul studies".

During this discussion, Leddy said, "If there is a soul, you cannot see it. You cannot find it."

"If there is a source of vital energy, then what is it?" The problem is that "the soul is not localized in any particular place. It is everywhere in the body and at the same time nowhere."

It would be "great to start experimenting, but I don't know how to set them up," Leddy said. The discussion, he said, reminded him of the Soviet cosmonaut who, returning from space, reported that there was no God, because he did not see Him there.

Perhaps this is so, Bigelow agreed, but when modern medicine is faced with something inexplicable, it is guided by the motto: "Find the answer - either in the laboratory or somewhere else, if only to discover the truth."

Central, Bigelow said, was the question of where the soul is and where it comes from.

Srila Prabhupada gives evidence of the Vedas

Dear Dr. Bigelow!

I recently read an article in the Gazette by Ray Corelli entitled "A Cardiac Surgeon Wants to Know What the Soul is" and I was very interested in it. From your remarks it is clear that you are very insightful, so I decided to write to you on the topic covered in the article. You may have heard that I am the Founding Acarya. I have several temples in Canada: Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and Hamilton. Our movement of consciousness aims to give every soul knowledge about its original, spiritual position.

The soul, no doubt, is present in the heart of a living being and serves as a source of energy that supports the body. The energy of the soul is distributed throughout the body, and this is called consciousness. Due to the fact that consciousness spreads the energy of the soul throughout the body, we can feel pain or experience pleasure in any part of the body. The soul is individual and moves from one body to another, just as a person passes from infancy to childhood, from childhood to adolescence, from adolescence to youth, and finally to old age. Then there is a change called death, when we exchange the old body for a new one, just as old clothes are exchanged for new ones. This is called transmigration of the soul.

When the soul wants to enjoy this material world, forgetting that its true home is in the spiritual world, it enters into this life, where there is a severe struggle for existence. This unnatural life in the cycle of repeated birth and death, sickness and old age can be brought to an end by harmonizing the consciousness of the soul with the higher consciousness of God. This principle is the basis of our Krishna movement.

As far as heart transplantation is concerned, its success is out of the question if there is no soul in the heart. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the existence of the soul. If the soul is not present during sexual intercourse, there will be neither conception nor pregnancy. Contraceptives worsen the conditions in the mother's womb, so that it ceases to be a suitable place for the soul. This is a violation of the will of God. At the command of God, the soul is sent to a certain womb, but if the mother used contraceptives and she is denied this womb, then she has to be placed in another. This is disobedience to God. Take, for example, a person who has to move into a certain apartment. But if the situation there is so abnormal that he cannot even enter his apartment, he is at a great disadvantage. This is illegal interference and is punishable.

The conduct of "soul studies" would undoubtedly testify to the progress of science. However, the progress of science will not help to discover the soul. The presence of the soul can also be recognized on the basis of indirect signs. It says that the size of the soul is equal to one ten-thousandth of the size of a point. Scientist- A materialist is one whose interests are entirely focused on the satisfaction of his material needs.

"> materialist unable to measure the length and width of a point. Therefore, he is unable to localize the soul. But you can simply acknowledge the existence of the soul by receiving this knowledge from an authority. What the greatest scientists are now discovering, we have already explained long ago.

As soon as a person is aware of the existence of the soul, he is immediately aware of the existence of God. The difference between God and the soul is that one hundred is the greatest soul, and the living entity is a very small soul; however, they are qualitatively the same. Therefore God is everywhere, and the living entity is localized. But their nature and qualities are the same.

The main question, you say: "Where is the soul, and where does it come from." This is not difficult to understand. We have already said that the soul resides in the heart of a living entity and after death receives another body. Initially, the soul comes from God. A spark flies out of the flame of a fire, and having fallen, it seems to be extinguished, so the spiritual spark initially comes to the material world from the spiritual world. In the material world, it falls into the conditions of three types, called the modes of nature. When a spark of flame falls on dry grass, it retains the properties of fire; when a spark falls on the earth, it cannot manifest its properties of fire, unless the earth creates favorable conditions for this; and falling into the water, it goes out. Thus we find three kinds of living conditions. One living entity has completely forgotten about his spiritual nature, another has almost forgotten but still retains the instinct of spiritual nature, and the third is absorbed in the search for spiritual perfection. There is an authoritative method by which the spiritual spark of the soul can reach spiritual perfection, and if it is properly guided, it will easily find its way home, back to Godhead, from whence it originally fell.

If this authoritative information of the Vedic literature is presented to the modern world on the basis of the latest achievements of science, it will be a great boon for mankind. The truth already exists. It just needs to be presented in such a way that a modern person can understand it.