Question 1

What is the subject matter of the book, "The God Concept"?

Accepted Answer

The basic subject is a Sanskrit-language work named "Manisha Panchakam", which is a work on Vedanta philosophy. 'The God Concept' is a translation from the original Sanskrit text into English language. While the original author of the Sanskrit work is Sankaracharya of the 8th Century, this translation relies on a tutorial in Malayalam language by Swami Aseshananda Saraswati of the Chinmaya Mission of Palakkad in Kerala State in South India.

Aside from the above basics, the book takes a non-dogmatic look at man's conception of God as a Supreme Being, and reveals the Ultimate Truth about God, the way He really IS. Surprisingly, these ideas have existed for thousands of years and never properly understood by common man till date.

Question 2

So is this book just another religious text for Hindu religionists?

Accepted Answer

No! While the original book does contain text in Sanskrit language which was the medium of philosophy in those early times, the explanations given to the subject matter by Swami Aseshananda avoids any reference to Hindu religious symbols or Gods of that religion. Based on these explanations of the Swamiji, one is struck by the totally secular outlook prevalent even in those ancient times as propagated by Sankaracharya.

The explanations of Aseshananda do not follow a literal translation from the Sanskrit text to Malayalam in his tutorial. In this respect, this work is dramatically different from other learned swamis and gurus who have tended to focus entirely on the literal translation of the original Sanskrit texts. The present book in English explains the difficulty for common man to grasp these literal translations, and highlights the difference Swami Aseshananda has brought to the subject of Vedanta philosophy in general, and to Manisha Panchakam in particular.

Question 3

So Sanskrit language books of philosophy can be 'Secular'?

Accepted Answer

Yes, absolutely! This book, 'The God Concept' is a fine example. While Sanskrit language texts were used from ancient times to teach principles of Vedanta to Indian masses, they used methods like story-telling (Ramayana. Mahabharata, Bhagavatam, Bhagavad Gita, etc., etc., involving great heroes and Gods of the Hindu religion) to illustrate the philosophy of the Vedanta. The stories were so convincing to the masses that they were captivated by them and took to them earnestly and built the Hindu religious practices around these Gods and heroes.

But, stripped of their gripping story content in these literature, the authors (including Krishna Himself) were seen trying to teach the universality of the individual self (which in Sanskrit is called 'Atma') as one with the Universal 'Atma' (or Paramatma). This Param-atma is the same as God ('Ishwara', in Sanskrit).

It is stressed that words like Atma, Paramatma, God, Ishwara, Awareness, Consciousness, Truth or Satyam, etc., etc., are all words to be used INTERCHANGEABLY, and they all mean, or refer to, the same thing: Brahmam, the Infinite. A 'word-salad' is not to be allowed to create confusion in our minds; all these phenomena are explained as One Infinite Being (called "Brahmam", the Sanskrit word meaning Very Large or Infinite).

This does not require one to believe in any particular religion or a specific form of worship, and so THAT makes it a most SECULAR concept. The derivation of this universal concept is most clearly enunciated by Swami Aseshananda in his original tutorial, here translated into English language for everyone's benefit in the book 'The God Concept'.

Question 4

Why is it so difficult to grasp the idea that I am not my body but the Consciousness that I feel my body is in possession of? Wouldn't I look foolish going around claiming to be something that no one believes in?

Accepted Answer

This is NOT a matter of belief. It is not a matter of faith. It is not a matter of trusting blindly. It is a matter for each one of us to analyze and consider and evaluate the evidence and logic presented before us and tender arguments for and against the evidence and the logic of these arguments before us.

It requires us to have an OPEN MIND, a critical mind, to make a judgement without bias.

You might remember the trouble we all had at one time to accept the new theory of a round Earth. Everyone could SEE for themselves that Earth was flat, yet here was a fellow trying to convince us otherwise! He could convince us only after the evidence he presented for a spherical Earth was convincing and became accepted by non-biased judges of those times.

When it is said that "Consciousness is you!", the reason for making that kind of statement needs to be examined without bias or pre-conceived notions. Such evidence is presented in this book, "The God Concept".  Its methods almost mimic a mathematical formula being derived! This book presents one of the most unorthodox explanation for the theory of why we are not our bodies, minds and intellects, but WE ARE COSNCIOUSNESS.

It is not that we have consciousness, but that WE ARE CONSCIOUSNESS!

Simplest ideas are most difficult to understand!!

Question 5

I am content with my present form of worship and belief in my religion. I don't need to be converted to any new theory about what I am!

Accepted Answer

Sure! Everyone is free to continue with what they believe is best for themselves. It is not at a compulsion to believe that the Earth is round and it goes round the Sun once a year. Whether we believe it to be round or not, or whether we imagine the flat Earth is the center of the universe or not, facts on the ground don't change: the Earth continues to be a sphere and goes round the Sun. These facts remain unaffected by our accepting or believing or approving the facts. That goes for our accepting or believing or approving the 'theory' of our being the Consciousness.

Question 6

How does anyone REALLY know that one is not this body/mind/intellect combo?

Accepted Answer

There are basically two methods of knowing about REALITY of who we are: Method-one, to believe the words of the Gurus and God himself when they say that we are the Infinite 'Aatma' and we are NOT the body/mind/intellect combo; and Method-two, to conduct a 'logical'  analysis of the sayings of the Guru and God using dispassionate, open-minded, analytical approach. The first method makes you a believer without conviction, absolutely trusting, afraid of challenging the words of the Guru or God for fear of being branded a blasphemer. The second method helps one to really understand the concepts without having to base this knowledge on blind trust anymore:

Now, in our books of religion and philosophy, there are no attempts at compelling the believer to follow a particular notion or idea or dogma, not following which the person is ostracized from religion and God's 'Kingdom'. The facts about Reality are presented in a lofty manner, and one  is only required to accept the ideas presented as facts or not, based on the intellectual capacity to understand the subject. Any choice the person makes is basically according to the intellectual capacity of that person. If he finds that the statements he reads in the books or hears from the guru are beyond his comprehension or acceptance limits, he has to resign himself to just trusting the gurus and God without real comprehension. He is even free to shun the whole thing and declare himself as a non-believer! Understanding the statements in the books require a great deal of hand-holding from the guru, and not every guru has come down to the student's intellectual level to make him grasp the basic ideas.

Our books of religion and philosophy abound with any number of sayings by the Gurus and God Himself that lays emphasis on the universality of our true nature. You need to use one of the two methods mentioned above to get convinced about those sayings.

Take this sample: 
Example: "अहमात्मा गुडाकेश सर्वभूताशयस्थितः।।" (Bhagavad Gita - 10.20)
("Aham Aatma Gudaakesha Sarvabhootaashayastthitah")

Sri Krishna declares unequivocally that He is the Self present in all created beings.

How should one interpret that statement? At a primitive level, one can understand this as: "God (Krishna in this case) can do all these 'magical things' like getting inside all created beings, because He is God"

What wonderful and mysterious things can God not do!

Would Krishna agree with that sort of explanation? Was He trying to impress His audience (in this case, Gudaakesha, a.k.a. Arjuna, who represents us, the ordinary mortals) about His power to infiltrate all of us?

Krishna does NOT need to impress anyone. Least of all, us the mortals. Let us examine the above statement a bit more objectively.

The statement asserts that "I am in every created being". There are no exceptions in that statement. He did not say, "I am present in all beings  except those who don't worship me".

He is present in all  beings as 'Atma' (or 'the Self'). The 'Self' is that awareness inside each of us when we say "I".

That Self then is, surely, the same Self in every one of us, because God has stated that He is present in all beings as Self.

You have to believe it if you have faith in Krishna. So this analysis is not the ultimate objective analysis of method-2 mentioned above. Still it is an improved version of method-1 because it makes use of some critical analysis.

If it is the case that the Self in me is same as the Self in God, surely, the 'aham' in me, the 'I' in me, should really refer to Krishna?

When I say 'I', am I not referring to the Self in me that is the same as the Self in Krishna?

Wow! What a thought!

So, my body/mind/intellect combination, the stuff I now regard as I, is different from the 'I' that I really am. The real I that I am is the Self that is common with the God's.

You can't contradict Krishna if you believe that He is God and his Bhagavad Gita is a universally recognised Holy Book of Hindu Religion. So I am one with God, and different from the body/mind/intellect combo.

Period.

All this presupposes that we accept Krishna's statement as God's declaration, not to be challenged. It still makes our acceptance of that declaration of our being identical with Krishna as based on faith (method-1).

It is not argument based on incontrovertible proof (method-2).

That proof will come only when we understand how the 'I' (the Aham) is really connected to the Self (Atma or Aatman). It is this proof that is to be found in the book, 'The God Concept.'

Another sample below reinforces this concept:
Example: "अन्तर्बहिश्च भूतानां व्याप्य नारायणस्थितः। (Narayana Sooktam)
(Antar bahischa bhootaanaam vyaapya narayana sthitah)

Narayana pervades everything, both within and without, existing inside and outside all beings. (This interpretation/meaning is taken from Google search)

'Narayana' is the Supreme Being in Hinduism, but generally further interpreted as the God Supreme ('Param Aatma', in Sanskrit). The universality of the statement in the above example lies in its declaration that God pervades every created being without exception. It does not say that God pervades only those beings who believe in Him or that God keeps those non-believers out of His circle of protection.

This example further reinforces the earlier example from the Bhagavad Geeta mentioned before. The message from God is identical: I, as Param Aatma, pervade the entire created universe without any exceptions like believers or non-believers.

Other examples from the holy books can be cited that assert the true nature of our beings as 'Atma' (Self) and not this physical body.

So when we say, "I am Name-1" or "I am Name-2", etc., the Name-1 and Name-2, etc., in the statements refer to the bodies of the individuals having those names but the I in all those statements refer to the Self or  Aatma' which is common and universal and one with God.

Finally, there is this universal declaration in the Hindu epic of 'Srimad Bagavatam' that goes like this:

"ब्रह्मेति परमात्मेति भगवानिति उच्यते।" (Srimad Bhagavatam - 1-2-11)
(Brahma iti Paramatma iti Bhagavan iti shabdyate)

The Universal One is variously spoken of as Brahma, Paramatma, Bhagavan, etc.

It declares that this Universal Being or God or Atma has many names describing It: we can conceive that it covers descriptions such as: Consciousness, Knowledge, Atman, Paramatman, Bhagavan (personal God), Brahman (the Infinite), Satyam (Truth), Awareness, Energy (Chaitanyam, in Sanskrit), etc., etc. These are all words interchangeable with one another. Each name is used ('shabdyate' - spoken) in a given circumstance but stands for all the others.

All these declarations are very much present in our fundamental religious books. True believers can't contradict such statements. And the argumentative fellow can always read up the proof of such statements in the book, The God Concept'!

Articles,
Discussions, Publications.

QUESTIONS

Frequently asked questions

What is the subject matter of the book, "The God Concept"?

So is this book just another religious text for Hindu religionists?

So Sanskrit language books of philosophy can be 'Secular'?

Why is it so difficult to grasp the idea that I am not my body but the Consciousness that I feel my body is in possession of? Wouldn't I look foolish going around claiming to be something that no one believes in?

I am content with my present form of worship and belief in my religion. I don't need to be converted to any new theory about what I am!

How does anyone REALLY know that one is not this body/mind/intellect combo?

Articles, Discussions, Publications.

QUESTIONS

Frequently asked questions

What is the subject matter of the book, "The God Concept"?

So is this book just another religious text for Hindu religionists?

So Sanskrit language books of philosophy can be 'Secular'?

Why is it so difficult to grasp the idea that I am not my body but the Consciousness that I feel my body is in possession of? Wouldn't I look foolish going around claiming to be something that no one believes in?

I am content with my present form of worship and belief in my religion. I don't need to be converted to any new theory about what I am!

How does anyone REALLY know that one is not this body/mind/intellect combo?

Articles,
Discussions, Publications.