Disasters & Religion QA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (denoted by KT)

In light of the incidents that occurred (which you must know about if you haven't been living under a rock for the past 2 days) concerning the loss of thousands of lives, as well as massive damage to the US both physically and economically, I don't understand how religion can explain things like this.

KT: Note that the sAdhana is the only answer and each individual must deal with such shocks with enormous calmness of mind. God must give prerana and a steadfast devotion coupled with right knowledge is the only way out. This is not an escapist attitude, but a proven thing through the path shown by our great gurus.

No matter how big the shock is, one thing must be made clear. It is not any person's desire that prevails. It is God's will that prevails. If we have to know why exactly this happened, we have to see from God's point of view, which is impossible. We try to give explanations based on available means, which is the religious and philosophical view as best as each individual can see. Is it self-deception ? I don't believe it is. It is meant to make one wiser and stronger. It is a terrible incident which is caused by a human agency and so it intertwines the feelings of shock and sadness with anger and dismay. If such a disaster were caused by an earth quake or some similar things, our feelings would have been different, though some of the doubts still will arise. Our philosophy sure does give many kinds of explanation and our view is clogged because of our finite capability of perceiving finite picture of one life-time.

It is said in BG,

dehino.asminyathA dehe kaumAraM yauvanaM jarA |

tathA dehAntaraprAptirdhIrastatra na muhyati || II-13

Just as the jIva in this body experiences the childhood, youth and infirmity in various stages, same way it occupies a different body through the death. A wise man does not grieve about the loss of this body.

This may sound impractical. But that is due to deficiency of our sAdhana. A person has some kind of body as a child. As a fully grown up person, he has totally different kind of body. But, he does not cry "Oh I lost my body of a child", because he is aware of the gradual change. If some one acquires the wisdom/knowledge of seeing through the fact that through the death, a different body is obtained, then such a person will not grieve. Then a subsequent question ensues, what about those who cannot see this or what about those who are related and survive that so called "death" of a person (which is really a transportation of jIva)? Knowledge is the only answer for moha. There is enough evidence that has been documented (in some cases) that a rebirth is a fact. The ability to see through many life times (aparoxa j~nAna) is not an easily given ability. If a doubt arises as whether that is possible or whether any one ever got such ability, it is left to each individual to find out this through one's own search or sAdhana.

Are we seriously supposed to maintain that those innocent people who died in the buildings actually went through that suffering because of PAST deeds??!!

KT: Well, there are 2 options.

1. No we don't maintain. This means that they went through the suffering not because of past deeds. It is just a random process.

2. Yes we do maintain. They went through it because of past deeds (not necessarily in the current life).

nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH |

ubhayorapi dR^ishhTo.antastvanayostattvadarshibhiH || II-16

Just as there cannot be happiness from bad deeds, there cannot be sadness from good deeds. The traditional instruction in both these instances is pramANa - this for sure was seen by the wise.

We are seeing only a small time frame. A documentary proof within the reach of a man will not be there to show that the process of rebirth is a fact in the case of every being and that over a long period and many births, the karma theory is maintained. This expectation of seeing a concrete proof stems from the so called modern scientific mind. We do not even know what punishment is given for what acts and in what way. As for me it is illogical to think that every thing is just a random process. The accidents in the eyes of humans are all well planned acts of Destiny (God in this form). Nothing "that should not have happened" will happen and nothing "that should have happened" will escape the happening. The human view has nothing to do with God's decision. This may make many think that God is cruel, but such thought is a result of incorrect understanding of God

Some of the facts:

1. The body is different from jIva (when the jIva departs from body, the body just remains inert)

2. The body is made from the five elements as we see how the body joins the five elements.

As against human eye, the death (the departure from the body) of 10 thousand bacteria is same as the death of 10 thousand people. But this is unacceptable for a man. But that is very hard to explain or understand. Look at it. This tormentful, heinous, murderous deaths gave joy to that whole bunch of terrorists. The anger of the victims is such that if all the terrorists undergo similar death, many of us feel a joy of immeasurable magnitude.

That there is in fact a God who not only gave the prerana to the terrorists to commit such a deed, but made sure that only those who deserved to suffer suffered?

KT: This is a compound question. First question is whether one believes in God. The second question is if one believes in God, whether He has any role in it. If one believes in God but no role for Him, then such belief has to conceive a "dummy God". If there is role for God, what is His role? This is where many religions differ. As for me, I believe that God always gives prerana and makes sure that things happen the way He does sankalpa. This alone sounds logical. But from our side, we must always show compassion to the ones we think are good and innocent and stand against what we think is evil. Mahabharata gives us a good example. The evil may win some temporary battles, but eventually the good will win. Is there another logical reasoning?

That no injustice was done because there is indeed an omnipotent and just God? Isn't this simply imagination run rampant, are we deluding ourselves to possibly avoid leading an immoral pointless life?

KT: In fact there is no rampant imagination at all. Atleast the omnipotence of God is quite evident as the helplessness of such powerful America in this case can be seen. As for the "justness", who decides this? Who knows the final outcome of the whole process? How does delusion help avoid leading immoral pointless life? In fact the suicidal terrorists may have believed in omnipotent and just God (Allah) and yet with that delusion, they were not able to avoid leading an immoral and pointless life (in our view, but in the view of terrorists, they are martyrs). The root cause is the "inhuman behavior" in the name of the religion.

True, the rationale that souls are beginning less, that it is their nature to commit the deeds that they commit, that God in fact regulates everything, giving the appropriate fruits of the actions to the appropriate people works fine on PAPER. But are we seriously supposed to hold such an idealistic theory to be true? How can I honestly say to myself that the loss of thousands of lives, the devastation caused to families, the havoc wreaked on buildings, all somehow fit into some sort of plan, and those who were hurt as a result, had committed some action in a prior life (something which is in itself uncertain) to get such a fate??!!

KT: Now look at our fate. If we have a theory that does not work on paper, we complain that why don't we have some theory that works at least on paper. When we have a theory that works fine on paper, we doubt whether we should be serious and how can we know it is true. The fact is that such a havoc has happened. There are two approaches:

1. As per the neovedantic, scientific atheists, just don't believe in any God and let it all be taken as some random functions in nature.

2. There is Omnipotent God, whose action is known only to Him.

How can any one establish or prove the certainty of action in prior life? And then because it cannot be proved in a "laboratory", can one say "I ignore it"? Can it be proved otherwise(action in prior life does not matter)? For one who says this is uncertain, the argument extends and the person says that the existence of God is uncertain. That is how atheists end up with a life, which the believers see as futile and empty.

If the starting point of j~nAna, bhakti and vairagya is not made with shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana, can there be progress in the philosophical thinking? The faith has to set in at some point. For one without faith, no amount of proof is sufficient and for one with faith no proof is necessary. In an attempt to avoid "mUDha bhakti", if one avoids "bhakti" itself, he will become only mUDha. J~nAna has to be combined with bhakti and one without the other is useless.

Note: A reasonably good understanding of any philosophy can only be obtained after a long and disciplined study under a proper guru. Even in case of aparavidya (scientific matters about tattvas other than the Lord), one is aware that many years of study is needed for proper understanding of the subject. In case of paravidya, even a deeper and longer study is needed. Without such, the answers to a few questions will lead to more and more questions.

The starting point for any thing should be that the Lord is infinitely complete with all the (infinite) auspicious qualities and He has no flaw whatsoever. Any thing that goes against this is an incorrect perception.

1) If the terrorists truly have no independence of their own, then isn't God to be held responsible for their actions? Surely it is the Karta that is responsible for the kartavya! If someone kills with a knife, you punish the person, not the knife.

KT: This has been answered already. But I will just add a couple of lines.

This has to be seen from the background of following verses from BG.

na hi kashchitxaNamapi jAtu tishhThatyakarmakR^it.h |

kAryate hyavashaH karma sarvaH prakR^itijairguNaiH || III-5

No one can remain without performing an action (mental or physical) even for an instant. All the beings, under the control of Sri Hari, keep performing actions true to their inherent nature influenced by triguNas.

Thus the jIvas are not independent doers and they get attached to karma by their ignorance, ego and the feeling that they are the doers.

na me pArthAsti kartavyaM trishhu lokeshhu kiJNchana |

nAnavAptamavAptavyaM varta eva cha karmaNi || III-22

[Sri Krishna says] "there is nothing for me that I am obliged to do in these three worlds. There was nothing that I could not obtain in the past and there will be nothing that I can not get in the future (I get what I wish for). Still I do karma to show an example of doing karma."

Thus all jIvas have to do karma. That God is the independent doer, and jIva is not an independent doer (but only a dependent doer) can not be an excuse for shedding the responsibility.

A knife is a jaDa [has no feelings] whereas a person has feelings and can think. A jIva, who has understood the "jIva kartR^itvavichAra" and goes by the vidhinisheda karya-s, can in no way hurt, intentionally and for an ignoble reason, any other sAtvika jIva.

When perceived with proper view, things become clearer. It is impossible to quote and explain entire BG, but it has answers for all these questions.

2)I realize that this discussion has been going on before, but the postings on it seem to be so disjointed and spread out over several postings, that it seems frustrating to get any answers. It would be nice if a webpage(under doctrine) could be added to the dvaita site concerning: Kartrtva/Svatantrya-vichaara

KT: Even if with lot of effort, such a page is created, each person will come with individual problems and an essay of one or two pages can not answer every problem. This has to be analyzed based on one's own sAdhana.

If Vishnu alone is svatantra, then how can paratantra entities be held responsible for their actions?

KT: This is same as question 1 with a variation of words. The answer is given.

*3)If we truly have a choice regarding whether we choose to punish the perpetrators of the WTC plane crashes or not, then how can Vishnu truly ensure justice will been done? On the other hand, if we don't have any choice, then what's to differentiate us from an insentient lifeless entity?

KT: The major flaw in this argument stems from the fact that one is thinking in the following line (which are wrong):

1. If we have the choice to punish then Vishnu does not have choice (as only one can have the choice).

2. If only Vishnu has the choice, then we need not do any thing. Let Him do as per His choice. Also we are like lifeless entities.

The answer to this is clearly

karmaNyevAdhikAraste mA phaleshhu kadAchana |

mA karmaphalaheturbhUrmA te saN^go.astvakarmaNi || II-47

[Sri Krishna says to Arjuna]"You have right in respect of action and never to its fruits. Let not the fruit of the action to be your motive and let there be no attachment to inaction either".

Thus both the above points are not true. A living being can only try to make the choice. The result of the choice is in God's hands only. Similarly the living being cannot refrain from an action on the pretext that the choice is in the hands of God. A lifeless being cannot do any prayatna. A living being alone can be indulged in an effort. Only the Lord is the decision maker for the results of the action, both in this world and world after [based on the karma of the jIva].

*4)If such a terrorist incident occurs and no injustice has truly occurred (since it is based on the past Karma-s of the individuals affected), then why should we even bother punishing the evil-doers? How does it become our duty to punish the terrorists, if they haven't really done anything wrong, but simply carried out Hari-iccha? I know that this is not what they were thinking, and that it IS our duty to punish them--I just don't understand it.

KT: The terms "justice" and "injustice" have been used. But there is a thorough mix up as to what is the purview of these terms. The humans can only take human scope of one life span. For ex. a king may have to give a death sentence to a criminal. The king cannot say "The criminal committed the crime as per God's will and the affected party is affected by God's will. Let me not interfere with God's justice and let me not punish the criminal". This is tantamount to forsaking the king's duty. On the other hand in God's creation, many life-times are taken into account and ordinary people like us cannot understand the ways of God and the process of handling the actions and their results. Thus we cannot use God's ways (which we cannot even understand) to direct the course of our action (as it is impossible to do so).

In MBTN, Dharmaraja says:

kartA cha sarvajagataH sukhaduHkhayorhi

nArAyaNastadanudattamihAsya sarvam.h |

tasmAnna kopavishhayo.asti kutashcha kashchit.h

tasmAt.h xamaiva sakaleshhu paro.asya dharmaH || XXII-66||

"Hari is all-doer and gives sorrow or happiness accordingly to all the beings in the universe. Thus there is none worthy of our anger. The king's greatest duty is to excuse all".

For that Draupadi replies:

satyaM cha vishhNuH sakalapravartako

ramAviriJNcheshapurassarAshcha |

kAshhThAdivat.h tadvashagAH samastA-

stathA.api na vyarthatA paurushhasya || XXII-68||

It is true that Vishnu is controller of all. Laxmi, Brahma, Rudra and others are all but puppets in His hand. But still the effort from the beings cannot be wasted(it is unavoidable).

tadAj~nayA purushhashcheshhTamAna-

shcheshhTAnusAreNa shubhAshubhasya |

bhoktA na tachcheshhTitamanyathA bhavet.h

kartA tasmAt.h purushho.apyasya vashyaH || XXII-69||

jIva does every thing with the preraNa of the Hari. According to the karma, the jIva undergoes the effects (in terms of woes and joys). That Karma is not wasted. jIva is dependent karta of those karmas and is under Hari's control.

vR^ithA yadi syAt.h paurushhaM kasya hetor-

vidhirnishhedhashcha samastavedagaH |

vidhernishhedhasya cha naiva gocharaH

pumAn.h yadi syAd.h bhavato hi tau hareH || XXII-70||

If the actions of jIva are waste, what for are the prescribed and prohibited karmas in the vedas? If these are not for the jIva, one may be forced to say that they are for Sri Hari (which is ridiculous as there are no vidhi nishedhas for Sri Hari).

tenaiva lepashcha bhavedamushhya

puNyena pApena cha naiva chAsau |

lipyeta tAbhyAM paramasvatantraH

kartA tataH purushho.apyasya vashyaH || XXII-71|

Then one will have to say that Sri Hari has the stain of punya and pApa (good and bad deeds). But Sri Hari never has that lepa, because He is all-independent. Thus the jIva is dependent karta only [and due to ignorance and ego, undergoes the result of such actions].

We must always remember "dharmo raxati raxitaH".

Obviously, I'm only using this incident as an example. If I can understand something of such a massive proportion, then naturally I will be able to understand things on a lesser scale in day-to-day life.

KT: The incident is of a massive one. But remember in the Mahabharata war, many were killed (much larger number and relatively of much higher percentage). That became a cause for establishing dharma. Who knows what is the final outcome of all this?

In BG Sri Krishna says,

7.12 Those things that indeed are made of (the quality of ) sattva, and those things that are made of (the quality of) rajas and tamas, know them to have sprung from Me alone. However, I am not in them; they are in Me!

From this we can note that even the tamasic qualities of terrorists is because of Krishna only and it is clearly said "thena vina na thrNa mapi chalathi". But I am not clear about the last sentence. Can anyone explain me the last sentance, " However, I am not in them, they are in Me".

KT: This verse and a few other verses on this topic are explained below.

mayA tatamidaM sarvaM jagadavyaktamUrtinA |

matsthAni sarvabhUtAni na chA.ahaM teshvavasthitaH || ....IX..4

na cha matsthAni bhUtAni pashya me yogamaishvaraM |

bhUtabhR^inna cha bhUtastho mamAtmA bhUtabhAvanaH || .....IX..5

"This entire universe is permeated by my invisible form. All the beings dwell in me. But, I do not dwell in them. Yet, behold that by my supreme yogic power, the beings do not dwell in me. I am the support of all the beings and I do not stay in them. My soul is the creator of all beings."

Explanation based on GitAvivR^ti by Sri Raghavendra swamy :

1. If God has permeated the entire universe, how come He is not seen ?

It is because He is in the invisible form.

("vyAptatve sarvatra kuto na dR^ishya ityato.avyakteti visheshhaNaM).

2. By using the word "tataM", the supporting quality of the universe and the supported quality of the Lord are both refuted. In other words, if a pot contains water, pot is supporting water. God's presence in everything is not similar to water's presence in the pot. Hence the expression "tataM" meaning loosely "permeating" is used.

("tatmityuktyA jagata AdhAratA svasyAdheyatA ghaTaderiva prAptAtaM nirAha").

3. All beings (both non-sentient and sentient) dwell in me or I contain them as a supporting entity. But I do not dwell in them meaning that they do not contain me or they do not support me. "stha" or "sthita" means "stay". "avastha" or "avasthita" "implies "stay in a kind of helpless way".

matsthAni = madAdhAratayA eva sajaDajIvajAtAni = All the non- sentient and sentient beings dwell in me as being supported by me.

teshhu chA.ahaM na avasthitaH = tadadhAratayA tadupajIvanena

na varta ityarthaH = I am not supported by them (they do not contain me.)

4. Having said that, to dispel another kind of doubt regarding God containing everything, the following explanation is given. It is common experience that on earth's surface, things that stay on earth exchange properties like heat and cold. Does it mean then, everything that stays in God exchanges properties with God. The answer is "not at all", because God is devoid of physical contact.

na cha matsthAni = tvagindriyena taM j~nAtvA.anyonyadharma

sankrAntiM chAsAdya na tishhTanti | bhagavataH prAkR^itasparsha rahitatvAt.h |

"ashabdamasparshamarUpaM" .. kaTha 3-15 ..ityAdi sruteH

5. I contain everything but still does not have contact with them. For the question "how it is possible", the answer is that God is doing this using His "yogic powers".

6. The above explanations further clarified and emphasized by "bhUtabhR^it.h" and "na cha bhUtasthaH" which mean I am the support(bearer) of all the beings and I do not stay in

them (i.e. they do not contain me).

7. Usage of "mamAtmA" is significant as it indicates God's soul and body are one and same and God's 'aprAkR^ita' form is divine. He is the creator of all beings (in the sense He gives them gross bodies).

samo.ahaM sarvabhUteshu na me dveshyo.asti na priyaH |

ye bhajanti tu mAM bhaktyA mayi te teshhu chapyahaM || IX..29

"I am equal (impartial) to all the beings in the universe. No one is my favorite (beloved) or my enemy (hate-worthy). Who ever serves me with devotion, accordingly I give them the results."

The above meaning is clear and does not have any room for misunderstandings.

ye chaiva sAttvikAbhAvA rAjasAstAmasAshcha ye |

matta yeveti tAnviddhi na tvahaM teshu te mayi || VII..12

"All the sattvic, Rajsic and Tamasic entities that are in this universe are created by me. So, they are dependent on me and in that way they are in me. But I am not in them in the sense that I am not dependent on them. (tadupajIvanena ahaM naiva tishhTAmi).

This along with the explanation of IX-4 and 5 is clear.

IshvaraH sarvabhUtAnAM hR^iddeshe.arjuna tishTati |

bhrAmayansarvabhUtAni yantrAruThAni mAyayA || XVIII..61

"Lord of the universe, by the will born out of "svarUpa" (inherent nature), dwells in the hearts of all the beings by controlling the souls in the bodies making them engage in various actions."

There are no contradictions if a clear understanding is made that God is inside everything as a controlling force, but not as a dependent entity.