The concept of God arose out of human necessity, not from emotional impulse. So it should persist till it meets the end. What if it still persists? Then, love must have crept in. Love developed. We did not fall in love while 'using it', rather we deliberately put effort to be in love, not for materialistic gain but for emotional gratification. We also wanted our love to be reciprocated, so we kept loving. Thus we came out of the first concept of necessity only to enter the second; from the necessity of physical survival to the necessity of spiritual nourishment. we became social from being biological.
When you are a baby, an infant, to you the earth is your mom's bosom, your primary source of physical nourishment. And who maintains your existential predicament? Your mother. You come to know that the earth is round, generous, full of food and shelter, a nice place to be. She is the Holy Mother, devi Sita, Goddess of earth! And gradually you come to know that there is a solitary reaper, constantly toiling away with blood and sweat to sustain the universe of kinship. He is the Father, God of sustenance. And "We are called by his name".
It is the parents who are the Deities to the newborn priest. Initially the priest is so innocent that s/he does not know mantra to chant to satisfy God, s/he simply demands. In the small temple of the child, the parents become the primary God as they provide for survival, the primary instinct of any creature.Gradually, as the priest learns to chant, the child starts to flirt, starting off 'social smile' usually. Now, this worship is too cute to ignore. So, the child is blessed with reciprocation. "How may I help you". The child feels secured of emotional warranty!
Relationship begins, necessary for both physical and emotional survival. But this relationship is not based on love. It is rather based on dependence. The child is more dependent on the parents than in love with them. Now, that day is not very far when the dependence will decrease and finally fade away and the relation shall thrive either on love or on custom.
Now, what the hell is this custom? We shall ponder over it shortly. At first, let's examine the nature of the relationship and its various determinants. It is the behaviour of the parents towards their offspring that determines the nature of the relationship. Parents with a good sense of child rearing will find their offspring to be more dependent on them, like some Gods are more dependable, hence worshiped more than others. The child will have positive experience in the relationship which will further invariably create the urge for the child to nurture the relationship and this time for spiritual nourishment as physical fulfillment is guaranteed, as to him/her it has been a 'my life' relationship. So the chance is that the essence of the relationship will soon become love when the dependence is over on the part of the child. On the other hand, child with negative experience or with least positive experience in the relationship is more prone to continue a customary relationship with the parents, since it was a 'part of life' relationship to him/her.
Custom is what we have been taught by the society as ought to. Custom practiced by mass becomes tradition. There are two types of people who follow tradition. One is s/he, who follows it because s/he feels like following it from within, as he finds some solace as a moral being. Another is s/he, who, on the other hand, is compelled to follow it by his socially moulded self, such is the deeply imprinted instruction of his/her society in his mind. S/He finds solace as a social being in doing it.
It is the relationship based on love which makes a man pure believer of God. Man, experienced in a relationship based on custom is a man of doubt in matter of faith in God. A 'moral' man wants to remain clear to his/her conscience and just does not want to run the risk of blasphemy; so renunciates to God. On the other hand, s/he, who is 'social' does so on social occasions with constant clash between his/her social and personal ego. Complete surrender is possible only through love. And love will be there only if the Concept of God is clear, consistent, dependable and loving.
Thus, long ago, we started to draw imaginary figures of Lord Brahma, the creator or of Lord Shiva, the perpetrator or of Goddess Durga, the dashabhuja, the subtle combination of dichotomy, who both nourishes as well as perishes only on the basis of our personal experiences and invested love with perfect zeal.
Like degree of acceptance of God is determined by our acceptance of the parents, So is the degree of resistance to God. While some people resist themselves to the concept of God, some simply reject God. Resistance to God has scientific cause behind it for whom who had ruthl ess parents. Even complete rejection is possible if the experience has been gruesome. In both of these cases, the existence of God is not Questioned. But, forgive me for the upcoming words, those who deny the existence of God must review their logic behind their atheist dogma. Either God is merciful or ruthless or both but God did exist and still does exist for All.
And, believe it or not, God does not reside within us, We are all Gods, not god, but God, for our next generation, at least.
When you are a baby, an infant, to you the earth is your mom's bosom, your primary source of physical nourishment. And who maintains your existential predicament? Your mother. You come to know that the earth is round, generous, full of food and shelter, a nice place to be. She is the Holy Mother, devi Sita, Goddess of earth! And gradually you come to know that there is a solitary reaper, constantly toiling away with blood and sweat to sustain the universe of kinship. He is the Father, God of sustenance. And "We are called by his name".
It is the parents who are the Deities to the newborn priest. Initially the priest is so innocent that s/he does not know mantra to chant to satisfy God, s/he simply demands. In the small temple of the child, the parents become the primary God as they provide for survival, the primary instinct of any creature.Gradually, as the priest learns to chant, the child starts to flirt, starting off 'social smile' usually. Now, this worship is too cute to ignore. So, the child is blessed with reciprocation. "How may I help you". The child feels secured of emotional warranty!
Relationship begins, necessary for both physical and emotional survival. But this relationship is not based on love. It is rather based on dependence. The child is more dependent on the parents than in love with them. Now, that day is not very far when the dependence will decrease and finally fade away and the relation shall thrive either on love or on custom.
Now, what the hell is this custom? We shall ponder over it shortly. At first, let's examine the nature of the relationship and its various determinants. It is the behaviour of the parents towards their offspring that determines the nature of the relationship. Parents with a good sense of child rearing will find their offspring to be more dependent on them, like some Gods are more dependable, hence worshiped more than others. The child will have positive experience in the relationship which will further invariably create the urge for the child to nurture the relationship and this time for spiritual nourishment as physical fulfillment is guaranteed, as to him/her it has been a 'my life' relationship. So the chance is that the essence of the relationship will soon become love when the dependence is over on the part of the child. On the other hand, child with negative experience or with least positive experience in the relationship is more prone to continue a customary relationship with the parents, since it was a 'part of life' relationship to him/her.
Custom is what we have been taught by the society as ought to. Custom practiced by mass becomes tradition. There are two types of people who follow tradition. One is s/he, who follows it because s/he feels like following it from within, as he finds some solace as a moral being. Another is s/he, who, on the other hand, is compelled to follow it by his socially moulded self, such is the deeply imprinted instruction of his/her society in his mind. S/He finds solace as a social being in doing it.
It is the relationship based on love which makes a man pure believer of God. Man, experienced in a relationship based on custom is a man of doubt in matter of faith in God. A 'moral' man wants to remain clear to his/her conscience and just does not want to run the risk of blasphemy; so renunciates to God. On the other hand, s/he, who is 'social' does so on social occasions with constant clash between his/her social and personal ego. Complete surrender is possible only through love. And love will be there only if the Concept of God is clear, consistent, dependable and loving.
Thus, long ago, we started to draw imaginary figures of Lord Brahma, the creator or of Lord Shiva, the perpetrator or of Goddess Durga, the dashabhuja, the subtle combination of dichotomy, who both nourishes as well as perishes only on the basis of our personal experiences and invested love with perfect zeal.
Like degree of acceptance of God is determined by our acceptance of the parents, So is the degree of resistance to God. While some people resist themselves to the concept of God, some simply reject God. Resistance to God has scientific cause behind it for whom who had ruthl ess parents. Even complete rejection is possible if the experience has been gruesome. In both of these cases, the existence of God is not Questioned. But, forgive me for the upcoming words, those who deny the existence of God must review their logic behind their atheist dogma. Either God is merciful or ruthless or both but God did exist and still does exist for All.
And, believe it or not, God does not reside within us, We are all Gods, not god, but God, for our next generation, at least.
