Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Expansion and Contraction: A Comparative Analysis of Sanatana Dharma and Islam

Expansion and Contraction:
A Comparative Analysis of Sanatana Dharma and Islam

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya
(Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D.)

In its relatively short, and decidedly Western-centric, history, a wide variety of academic terms have arisen from within the discipline known as Religious Studies in the expressed order of assisting the field's specialists to more ably grasp the structure and outlook of religious sects and institutions. One pair of such terms that we encounter are the concepts of "Expansive" versus "Contractive". It is important to note that these two words are used, not with the intent of ascribing a superiority status to any one particular sect or religious phenomenon over another, or of denigrating any particular religious belief system, but with the aim of rationally understanding the functional and attitudinal aspects of differing religious institutions. In the following, I will illustrate the meaning of the terms Expansive and Contractive by examining two very different religious traditions: Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) and Islam.

Before we begin, however, it is important to first explain the difference between these two academic terms. An expansive religion is one that tends toward social and philosophical inclusiveness. Overall, such faiths tend to be both tolerant of internal differences of opinion, as well as open to positive contributions from outside the institutional bounds of the faith. Generally, they seek to embrace the social, political and philosophical realities that exist outside the sectarian confines of the religion. Expansive religions are inherently open, classically liberal, progressive and accepting.

By marked contrast, a contractive religion is exclusivistic in nature. Members of contractive sects tend to view themselves as being thoroughly separated from non-believers by virtue of their own espousal of the one and only true faith. Unlike expansive faiths, contractive religions tend to be highly suspicious of both internal dissent, as well as of perceived external challenges. Consequently, such faiths will often suppress any attempts at reform, change and renewal from within, and will repeatedly wage both ideological and martial war against other faiths whom they consider to be at odds with their own rigidly cherished notions of truth.

It has been argued by numerous scholars and practitioners that the religion of Sanatana Dharma is radically expansive by nature. This expansiveness can be seen, first, in the realm of traditional Hindu philosophical and theological thought. The six schools of Vedic philosophy (Shad-Darshanas), while completely united in their assessment and acceptance of the basic philosophical foundations of Sanatana Dharma, are also seemingly diverse in their respective approaches (upaya) to moksha, or the ultimate spiritual attainment of liberation. For example, while the Samkhya school of Vedic philosophy posits a dualistic ontology, juxtaposing the two distinct elements of purusha (spirit) and prakriti (matter), the school of Advaita Vedanta contrarily sees reality in purely monistic terms. For Shankara's Advaita, there is only one substance in reality: Brahman, or unbounded consciousness.

For Vedanta, on the one hand, ritual is generally viewed as being merely a collection of symbolic rites, the efficacy of which is negligible in contrast with the attainment of brahma-vidya, or the knowing of Brahman; but for the Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy, ritual in accordance with Vedic injunction is the highest religio-philosophical activity that can be performed by human beings. Despite the diversity and freedom of opinion that has existed both within and between these many schools of Hindu thought, these schools have all peacefully co-existed in South Asia for thousands of years, preferring to do battle in the realm of civil academic debate rather than on the bloody battlefields of supposed holy wars.

In keeping with this respect for diversity of opinion and thought, hundreds of various sects, traditions and schools of thought have arisen within the tolerant framework of Vedic culture, all united in a mutual respect of the Vedic literature as the highest epistemological authority for all Vedic schools. So open-minded has the Hindu outlook traditionally been that it has sometimes been asserted by some Western academic observers of Sanatana Dharma that whatever an individual's particular belief, concern or practice may be, there is (or at least has at one time been) a branch of Sanatana Dharma that embraces it. While this claim is certainly a vast exaggeration on the part of some outside observers, the existence of such a claim does at least point to the fact that Sanatana Dharma is, indeed, a religion of tolerance, diversity and expansion.

The atmosphere of tolerance traditionally encouraged by Sanatana Dharma is dramatically seen in how Sanatana Dharma has historically dealt with heterodox religious and philosophical movements that later arose within the context of the Dharmic religio-cultural milieu. The religions of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are three religions that originated as direct offshoots from Sanatana Dharma. Both Buddhism and Jainism began as ascetically oriented movements within mainstream Sanatana Dharma in the fifth century B.C.E. Sikhism, which was founded by the great Guru Nanak in the fifteenth century C.E., was an attempt to synthesize the profound philosophical insights of Sanatana Dharma with the zealous martial spirit of Islam. While all three of these heterodox Dharmic movements were founded as schools of thought within the greater rubric of Hindu culture, in time all three began to view themselves as religions distinct from the Vedic/Hindu world-view.

Despite several major philosophical and religious differences between these three later Dharmic sects and Sanatana Dharma, however, most of the contention between these religions have remained on a purely philosophical level. At no time in South Asian history did there occur such instances of persecution and bigotry between these religions as was witnessed in the Inquisition, Crusades or witch-hunts so well known in the sad history of Abrahamic religious expression. Consequently, while it is certainly true that no religion falls perfectly into either the expansive or the contractive category, it is rather safe to say that Sanatana Dharma has overwhelmingly displayed more expansive characteristics throughout its long history than not.

With the above caveat about the dangers of generalizing in mind, we will now explore a more contractive religion. Unlike the tolerance observed throughout the long and very illustrative history of Sanatana Dharma, Islam demands that its adherents follow a very rigidified code of beliefs, attitudes and practices. Every Muslim, for example, is required to uphold six sacred religious beliefs. Muslims must believe: a) that there is only one true god, whose name is Allah, b) in the existence of a vast repertoire of semi-divine beings called angels, c) in a specific number of recognized prophets (ranging from Abraham to Muhammad, and including Jesus and Moses) who were sent by Allah to reveal his commandments upon humanity, d) in the revelations given by Allah to these specific prophets, e) in a final Day of Judgment in which all beings will either join Allah in paradise or perish eternally in hell, and f) in the doctrine of predestination (the idea that Allah has already preordained who will be saved and who will perish).

In addition to these six obligatory beliefs, it is required that each Muslim perform five practical religious duties, known as the Five Pillars of Islam. These are: 1) Confession of the faith ("There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet"), 2) prayers five times daily, 3) fasting during the month of Ramadan, 4) Almsgiving, and 5) the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. All people who do not follow these commands of Allah are traditionally considered by Muslims to be unbelievers, and are subsequently subject to conversion to the one true faith of Islam.

In Islamic theo-political theory, the non-Muslim world is divided into two broad categories: a) Dhimmis, or people of "the book", and b) Heathens, or subhuman non-believers. The Dhimmis - Jews and Christians - are considered to be people of the Covenant because they are followers of the earlier revelations of the prophets Moses and Jesus, respectively. Dhimmis were therefore historically given special protective status in the Islamic world. Despite this special treatment by Islamic rulers, however, Judaism and Christianity are still considered by Muslims to be religions that fall far short of being true religion. Thus, Dhimmis are always under due pressure to convert to Islam.

Followers of all other religions that lay outside of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world-view, however, are looked upon as "heathens" by the Islamic religious law. Such "Heathens" include Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Shintoists, Pagans, and the followers of all earth-centered indigenous religions. "Heathens", up until the last few hundred years, were considered third class citizens in Islamic societies, and were subject to forced conversion, special taxation and often severe persecution. The temples and sacred relics of such "heathens" were systematically destroyed; their priests, saints and sages were killed; and their histories rewritten by Islamic scholars. Islam is considered by more liberal Muslims as being the most legitimate of all religions, and by its conservative elements as being the only true religion, all other forms of religious expression being but pale imitations of the glory of Islam.

Not only are non-Muslim religions looked upon with a very high degree of suspicion by Muslims, but internal dissent is also rarely tolerated in Islam. Heterodox movements within Islam, such as the Shias, Druze and Alawites, are considered heretical and their respective followers have historically been persecuted and killed by the majority Sunnis. In addition, strict Islamic societies are usually guided by the Sharia, the rigid code of law and rules which governs the life and behavior of all Muslims. The strict demands placed upon believers, coupled with a lesser degree of tolerance than is exhibited in more expansive religions, make for a convincing argument that Islam would be considered a contractive religion by most objective academic observers.

It is crucial that the many varied and diverse religions of the world be studied, as much as is feasible, on their own terms, and from an objectively sympathetic perspective. Like all the many attempts to analyze and categorize faith systems that have arisen from the field of Religious Studies, the Expansive/Contractive definition is but an attempt to better understand the differences between the many diverse religions of the world. These terms are certainly helpful pointers to a general understanding of the specific religions under observation, but they are not wholly perfect instruments in making such assessments. It is my hope that these two terms have assisted the reader somewhat in gaining a more objectively focused glimpse into the psychological, philosophical and social distinctions that exist between two very different, and in many ways thoroughly juxtaposed, world-views, that of Sanatana Dharma and Islam.

The Author

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya (Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D.) began his personal spiritual journey over 35 years ago at the tender age of ten when he read the Bhagavad Gita for the very first time. He coupled his decades of intense spiritual practice and study with advanced academic achievements, earning a B.A. in philosophy/theology from Loyola University Chicago, as well as an M.A. and Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Explaining to his doctoral advisor that "I don't want to just study the history of religion…I want to make religious history", Sri Acharyaji eventually left academia to devote himself exclusively to spiritual teaching and to the preservation of the great tradition of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism).

Sri Acharyaji is universally acclaimed as one of the world's most respected and qualified Dharma teachers and Hindu spiritual leaders. Dr. Deepak Chopra has exclaimed in 2002: "You've done truly phenomenal work teaching the pure essence of Yoga". In a similar manner, Dr. David Frawley has said about Sri Acharyaji, "Dr. Frank Morales represents the Sankalpa [the will] of the Hindu people and the cause of Sanatana Dharma. I urge all Hindus everywhere to give him your full support, assistance, and encouragement in his crucial work. He needs and deserves our help."

Sri Acharyaji was the Resident Acharya (Spiritual Preceptor) of the Hindu Temple of Nebraska (2007 - 2009), which represents the first time in American history that a Hindu temple has ever made such an esteemed appointment.

Today, Sri Acharyaji occupies his full time teaching Dharma spirituality to diverse audiences. In addition to leading classes, satsanghas, seminars and lecturing on Sanatana Dharma widely, Sri Acharyaji is a renowned author, as well as a personal spiritual guide (guru) to a rapidly increasing following of enthusiastic students from both the Indian and the non-Indian communities.

Some of his books include:

"Knowing God in the Vedic Tradition"

"Radical Universalism: Does Hinduism Teach that All Religions are the Same?"

"Taking Refuge in Dharma: The Initiation Guidebook"

"The Shakti Principle: Encountering the Feminine Power of God"

"The Art of Wisdom: Affirmations for Boundless Living"

For more information about the life and teachings of Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya, please visit his website:



• Andrae, Tor. "Mohammed: The Man and His Faith." New York: Schribners, 1936.
• Avdich, Kamil Y. "Survey of Islamic Doctrine." Cedar Rapids, Iowa:
privately printed, 1979.
• Cane, P. V. "A Brief Sketch of the Purva-Mimamsa System." Poona:
Aryabhushan Press, 1924.
• Chaudhuri, Roma. "Ten Schools of the Vedanta." 3 vols. Calcutta: Rabindra Bharati University, 1981.
• Deutsch, Eliot. "Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction."
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1969.
• Esposito, John, ed. "Islam and Development." Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1980.
• Galwash, Ahmad. "The Religion of Islam." Cairo, Dar al-Shaab, 1952.
• Klostermaier, Klaus K. "A Survey of Hinduism." New York: SUNY Press, 1994.
• Lacombe, Olivier. "Indianite: Etudes Historiques et Comparatives sur la Pensee Indienne." Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1979.
• Lapidus, Ira M. "A History of Islamic Societies." Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Morales, Frank. "Radical Universalism: Does Hinduism Teach that All Religions are the Same?" New Delhi: Voice of India, 2008.
• Radhakrishnan, S. "Indian Philosophy." 2 Vols. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996.
• Rahman, Fazlur. "Islam." 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
• Rust, Eric C. "Religion, Revelation & Reason." Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1981.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

The Role of the Guru in Sanatana Dharma

The Role of the Guru in Sanatana Dharma

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya
International Sanatana Dharma Society

tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadeksyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah

“Just try to learn the Truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the Truth.”

(Bhagavad Gita, 4:34)

The concept of practicing spiritual life under the guidance of an authentic and qualified guru, or spiritual teacher, has been central to the entire Dharmic world-view from the beginning of time, down to our present day. So important has the role of the guru always been in Vedic culture, that there is no Hindu tradition or sampradaya (school of thought) in all of Sanatana Dharma that does not offer the greatest of respect to the importance of the guru.
The great Vedantic text known at the Vedanta-sara paints the following dramatic picture in order to convey the importance of having a guru in one’s spiritual pursuit:

janana-maranadi-samsaranala-santapto dipta-sira jala-rasim iva
upahara-panbm sotriyam brahma-nistham gurum upasrtya tam anusarati

“Just as a person whose head is on fire runs to water, one who burns from the flames of birth, death, old age, and disease in the holocaust of material existence must run to a genuine guru for relief. Such a guru must be fixed in the Absolute Truth and well-versed in the scriptures. One should approach him with all that is needed for sacrifice and submit to him as a disciple, ready to carry out his every instruction.”

(Vedanta-Sara, 11)

In our present era, the term “guru” has become very well known even throughout the non-Hindu world, in addition to being known within Sanatana Dharma. Indeed, the very word “guru” has today become a part of the standard English lexicon with such terms as “computer guru”, “health guru”, “economics guru”, etc. being employed in daily usage. While the use of the word has become widespread, however, the sacrosanct importance of the station of guru is not as deeply understood in contemporary society as it once was. In the following work, I will be briefly explaining the traditional Dharmic understanding of the importance of the guru in the life of the spiritual practitioner, as well as dispelling some of the more common myths often wrongly associated with the principle of guru.

Interestingly, the very word “guru” itself is actually a somewhat generalized term that simply means a competent teacher of any kind. Any skilled expert who is authorized to teach a specific subject can be considered a guru in the most general of senses. Thus, there can be a sitar guru, a martial arts guru, a medicinal arts guru, or a fine arts guru. When the word is used in the overtly spiritual sense, however, then we are talking about a guru of a categorically different nature. The spiritual guru is specifically designated as a “sadguru” or a teacher of Truth. It is the sadguru, the conveyer of Truth, who serves as the underlying model of any and all other types of gurus.

It has always been universally recognized that one can only learn a specialized field of important knowledge from a qualified and well-trained teacher, an expert on that particular subject who has both theoretical knowledge, as well as the acquired experience necessary to bring that knowledge to life. If one were to study to become a medical doctor, for example, it is understood that the only way to truly understand medicine is to go to a recognized school, and learn under the instruction of very experienced professors who themselves are recognized doctors trained and authorized to teach. If we attempt to learn to become a doctor by merely reading books on our own without the benefit of such expert guidance, we will be doing both ourselves and our later patients the greatest of disservices. Rather than curing our patients, in fact, we will most likely harm them due to our not having learned medicine from a living authority.

Similarly, it has been universally recognized in our Hindu tradition since the most ancient of times that if one wishes to understand and make progress in the realm of spirituality, one must also seek guidance under the most able spiritual professionals available. Such a spiritual professional is the guru.

According to the Bhagavata Purana:

tasmad gurum prapadyeta
jijnasum sreyam uttamam
sabde pare ca nisnatam
brahmany upasamasrayam

“One who is searching for the Ultimate Truth must surrender unto a spiritual master, a guru. A guru knows the inner meaning of the Vedas, is fixed in the Absolute Truth and is expert in the shastra, the revealed scriptures.”

(Bhagavata Purana, 11.3.21)

Of all types of gurus, the scriptures (Shastras) of Sanatana Dharma have recognized the Acharya as the most important form that the principle of guru can take. Acharyavan puruso veda, “Only one who has an Acharya can know the Truth.” (Chandogya Upanisad, 6.18.2) It is only under the guidance of an Acharya who knows the Truth that a seeker can in turn know Truth.

The sadguru is a spiritual teacher. The Acharya, moreover, is considered to be a sadguru who has attained a much higher stage of personal spiritual development, and who thus has more responsibility in the realm of Dharmic leadership. An Acharya is a spiritual preceptor who represents a living lineage (sampradaya) of Sanatana Dharma, and who embodies the teachings of Dharma in his own life, thus teaching the world by his own personal living example. While every Acharya fulfills the function of a guru, not every guru can be considered an Acharya.

More than merely being a teacher in the formal academic sense, however, the Acharya guru is recognized as also being someone who possesses divine qualities due to his own years of practice and inner realization, and who thus perfectly personifies the fruit of spiritual teachings in his own life.

acinoti yam sastrartham
acare sthapayaty api
svayam acarate yasma
acharyas tena kirtitam

“An Acharya is one who fully understands the conclusions of the revealed scriptures. His own behavior reflects his deep realization, and thus he is a living example of divine precept. He is therefore known as an Acharya, or one who teaches the meaning of the scriptures both by word and deed.”

(Vayu Purana)

The qualified and authentic guru is not merely someone who teaches the Truth verbally, but who also lives that Truth perfectly, and who then reflects that Truth to his students in a living and dynamic way.

In the present Age of Conflict (Kali Yuga), unfortunately, we often encounter unqualified and self-anointed individuals who claim to be gurus while often falling very far short of the true meaning of this term. Often such unqualified persons do not possess the prerequisite qualities, training, and characteristics necessary to call themselves a guru in the authentic and scripturally-based sense of this term. The scriptures of Sanatana Dharma have given us very clear and unambiguous guidelines of many of the most important qualities necessary in order to recognize whether or not a person is in fact an authentic and qualified guru. Some of these guidelines are outlined in the Bhagavad Gita:

duhkhesv anudvigna-manah
sukhesu vigata-sprhah
sthita-dhir munir ucyate

“One who is not disturbed in spite of the threefold miseries, who is not elated when experiencing pleasantness, and who is free from attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage of steady mind.”

(Bhagavad Gita, 2:56)

Thus, the sadguru (true guru) is inwardly detached and transcends the sufferings of this world, accepting material pleasure and pain, suffering and pleasantness with equal demeanor. It is as a result of the true guru’s transcendent status - and the consequent calm, peace, and gravitas that the guru exudes at all times - that the true guru has the ability to help his student to similarly transcend the darkness of ignorance.

More, the true guru exhibits certain necessary inherent qualities that are a reflection of the fact that he is presencing the Divine in his own life. Again, the Bhagavad Gita gives us several lists of these important transcendental qualities of the true guru, or the liberated sage, including the following important characteristics:

“The Blessed Lord said: Fearlessness, purification of one's existence, cultivation of spiritual knowledge, charity, self-control, performance of sacrifice, study of the Vedas, austerity and simplicity; nonviolence, truthfulness, freedom from anger; renunciation, tranquility, aversion to faultfinding, compassion and freedom from covetousness; gentleness, modesty and steady determination; vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, freedom from envy and the passion for honor--these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.”

(Bhagavad Gita, 16:1-3)

In this way, the guru personifies the fruit of a sattvic (spiritually positive) lifestyle and of years of meditative practice.

A true guru is known, not merely by how much charisma they may possess, or by what cheap supposed miracles they seemingly perform, or by how popular they have become with the gullible masses due to well-formulated PR and marketing campaigns. Rather, true gurus are known by whether or not they personify the qualities of a guru that are clearly outlined in the scriptures of Sanatana Dharma. Any person who claims to be a true guru, but who does not exhibit all the qualities of a true guru that are revealed in the scriptures of Sanatana Dharma, is a false guru and must be immediately rejected as a charlatan if the student is going to make any progress toward the goal of transcendental realization.

It is precisely because the true guru both personifies the very highest philosophical teachings (siddhanta), as well as the moral and yogic behavior described in our scriptures that the guru has the ability to deliver us from ignorance to wisdom, from darkness to the light, and from bondage to freedom.

According to our scriptures, when we find ourselves in the presence of such an authentic guru, it is almost as if we are in the very presence of God Himself; because like God, the sadguru has the ability to show us Truth, and to thus set us free. In the Bhagavata Purana, Sri Krishna confirms this in His instructions to His great devotee Uddhava:

acharyam mam vijaniyam
navamanyeta karhicit
na martya buddhyasuyeta
sarva-deva mayo gurum

[Krishna told Uddhava] "Know the Acharya as My very Self. I am the Acharya. Never envy the Acharya; never blaspheme him or consider him to be an ordinary man. Because the Acharya channels the infinite, He is greater than the sum total of all the finite. Thus, he is more important than all the gods.”

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.17.27)

Further, Sri Krishna explains in the same sacred text that to even view the liberated Acharya as an ordinary man, and to not offer one’s due respects to such an exhalted guru, is considered by Him to be a great offence (guru-maha-aparadha):

yasya saksad bhagavati
jnana-dipa prade gurau
martyasad-dhim srutam tasya
sarvam ku-jara-saucavat

“The guru must be considered to be like the Supreme Lord Himself, because he bestows the light of transcendental knowledge upon his disciples. Consequently, for one who maintains the material conception that the guru is an ordinary human being, everything is frustrated. His attempts to make progress in spiritual life - his Vedic studies and scriptural knowledge, his penances and austerities, and his worship of the deity - are all as useless as the bathing of an elephant who rolls in the mud after his bath.”

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.20.17)

Confirmation of these Vedic instructions on the nature of sadguru is found throughout the length and breadth of the Hindu scriptures. For example, in the Padma Purana it is explained that: gurus nara-matir yasya va naraki sam, “One who thinks that the guru is an ordinary man is said to live in ignorance.” In this way, we see that the totality of the scriptures speak in one, unified and authoritative voice on the importance of the guru and the unique role of the guru is the life of one who claims the desire to know Truth.

Later in this same conversation, Uddhava replies to Sri Krishna’s instruction in the same vein:

naivopayanty apacitim kavayas tavesa
brahmayusapi krtam rddha mudam smarantam
yo'ntar bahis tanu-bhrtam asubham vidhunvann
acarya-caittya vapusa sva-gatim vyanakti

[Uddhava said to Sri Krishna] "O my Lord! Transcendental poets and experts in spiritual science could not fully express their indebtedness to You, even if they were endowed with the lifetime of Brahma, for You appear in two features - externally as the Acharya and internally as the Paramatman, the Supreme Self - to deliver the embodied living beings by revealing to them your devotional service and teaching them how to approach you on the path of divine love."

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.29.6)

In addition to explaining both the nature and the qualities of the sadguru, the scriptures also explain that it is likewise very important to understand the important qualities that must be present in a sincere and qualified student. In the Katha Upanishad, for example, we read the following:

sravanayapi bahubhir yo na labhyam
srnvanto 'pi bahavo na vidyum
acharyo 'sya vakta kusalo 'sya labhda
acharyo jnata kushala nushishtam

“Many cannot even hear about the soul, and even after hearing about the soul, many cannot understand it; this is because it is hard to find an Acharya who is a genuine seer of the truth. Such a qualified Acharya is a great soul and is very rare. At the same time, realization of the truth can be had only by those disciples who carefully follow the qualified Acharya’s teachings and become expert in the science of God. Such disciples are also very rare. Thus it is that only a few ever come to know the soul in truth.”

(Katha Upanisad, 1.2.7.)

To find a sincere and worthy student is thus explained as being just as difficult as finding a qualified and worthy sadguru. The highest attainment of transcendent Truth, and the personal spiritual liberation (moksha) that results from such a realization, is the most difficult goal to realize. Thus, Krishna states in the Bhagavad Gita:

Manushyam sahasreshu
Kashchid yatati siddhaye
Yatatam api siddhanam
Kashchin mam vetti tattvatah

“Of many thousands of men, one will attempt to reach perfection; and of the few who reach this goal, only a rare soul will perhaps know Me as I am.”

(Bhagavad Gita, 7:3)

When a sincere student and a qualified sadguru finally do find each other, and unite in the eternal process of spiritual exchange – the guru sharing his insight, instruction, and empowering presence with the student; and the student learning and growing spiritually with humility, sincerity, openness and eagerness – we then witness the perfect conditions necessary for the celebration and living of Truth. If you are seeking Truth, then seek the guidance of one who has seen the Truth. Seek the sadguru.

The Author:

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya (Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D.) is an American who has been practicing Sanatana Dharma for over 35 years. He has a Ph.D. in Religious Studies and is recognized by the global Hindu community as one of the leading Hindu Acharyas (Spiritual Preceptors) in the nation. With a large international following of both Indian and Western students, Sri Acharya Ji is especially renowned for his highly authentic approach to Dharmic spirituality, his authoritative and scholarly method of teaching, and his clear emphasis on serious spiritual practice and direct experience of self-realization and knowledge of God. He has lectured on Sanatana Dharma at such prestigious institutions as Harvard University, Columbia, Rutgers, Cornell, Northwestern, as well as for such Fortune 500 companies as Ford Motor Corporation and Lucent Technology. He is the Founder and President of the International Sanatana Dharma Society.

His primary websites are:




Please help us spread this message far and wide. If you found this article helpful to you in your own understanding of the spiritual path, please forward it on to others so that they too may derive spiritual benefit.

Bhakti as a Social Force

Bhakti as a Social Force

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya
(Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D.)

The very heart of Sanatana Dharma consists of experiencing a direct and intimate realization of God in devotion (bhakti). Without such an experience, Sanatana Dharma is rendered devoid of all meaning and purpose. To love God is to embrace Dharma. And to embrace Dharma thoroughly and without reservation is what it means to be a Hindu.

One of the most unfortunate and most damaging stereotypes that many present-day Hindus have about Sanatana Dharma is that a) deep spirituality and b) practical action in the world simply do not mix. In the minds of such people, serious spiritual practice and practical social action are mutually exclusive paths, of which we can only choose one. Such a defeatist scenario is in actuality the very opposite of the realty of Sanatana Dharma. Indeed, holding this incorrect opinion that one cannot be both spiritual and also engaged in the world is in itself just another sad manifestation of the self-denigrating syndrome that we see so prevalent among nominal Hindus today.

When we look at both the history and the teachings of Sanatana Dharma specifically, and of all religions generally, we see that the reality is the opposite of these gross, and very much modern, Western-inspired, stereotypes. The myth of the other-worldly mystic having been rendered incapable of engaging the world around him in a practical and activist manner is an exaggerated stereotype arising more from the speculative minds of spiritually unaware speculators of religion than from anything corresponding to reality. Rather than being socially debilitating, spirituality has always proven itself to be the most powerful motivator for highly practical and effective action in the world.

Bhakti, or single minded devotional meditation upon Bhagavan (God), is not a hindrance to practical social and political action in the world. On the contrary, bhakti has been, by its very inherent nature, a powerful and dynamic social force in the past. Bhakti is an unparalleled motivating force that has induced revolutionary and progressive change. It will also serve as the driving spiritual force that will revive and strengthen Dharma well into the 21st Century.

If we examine the very long history of Sanatana Dharma, we see that it was almost exclusively deeply spiritually-realized people who were always the most practical and successful men (and women) of action. Valmiki, for example, was originally a bandit who then later became a dedicated Rama-bhakta and ascetic sage. It was only after this personal spiritual transformation affected him to the core of his being that he then found himself empowered to compose the enormous literary masterpiece known as the Ramayana in its 24,000 Sanskrit verses. Indeed, the entire corpus of Sanskrit shastras (scriptures) were written by hundreds of spiritually-inspired saints, whose very motivation for writing about philosophy, religion, politics, Yoga, mathematics, sciences, medicine, etc., etc. was their own radically personal self-transformative experience of the presence of God within them. Without the committed scholarship of such spiritually-inspired sages, Hinduism and India would today have been entirely devoid of an intellectual and cultural history! It was the empowerment provided to these sages by God that equipped them to realize unparalleled feats of scholarly and literary accomplishment in this world.

After the ascendance of Buddhism and Jainism in Hindu India, it was again God-realized men of action who - far from retreating from the world and living in their sadhana huts - led dynamic movements that saved Sanatana Dharma from imminent extinction. The great sage Sri Shankara Acharya was known as Dig-vijaya (“Conqueror of All Directions”) because he quite literally conquered the four corners of India, peacefully reestablishing Vaidika Siddhanta (the Vedic Truth) as the preeminent philosophical system on earth, and the only legitimate path for knowing Brahman (God). Shankara was not shy in his assertion that Sanatana Dharma was the most legitimate and direct way of knowing God, and each and every other system was substandard in comparison. He is known to have engaged in hundreds of debates with the avaidika (non-Hindu) Buddhists, soundly defeating them with the superiority of Vedic teachings, and converting their followers en masse to Sanatana Dharma. Hardly an otherworldly dreamer was he!

The great Vedantist philosopher Ramanuja Acharya, similarly, was a radical bhakta (practitioner of Bhakti-yoga) who nonetheless wrote some of the most philosophically profound masterpieces India has ever produced, while simultaneously traversing the length of breadth of Bharata (India) to reestablish the path of bhakti as the greatest expression of Vedanta philosophy. Ramanuja created a revolution in people’s understanding and appreciation of the ancient bhakti tradition, reviving bhakti in the four corners of India, and changing the course of Indian and world history.

Like Shankara centuries before him, the Vaisnava Vedantist Sri Madhva Acharya traveled widely, actively converting thousands of Buddhists and Jains to Sanatana Dharma, and reestablishing Vaidika Dharma in South India. He also urged the kings of South India to physically expel thousands of avaidika Jain leaders from their kingdoms, converting many important kings to the fold of Sanatana Dharma.

Tulasidas, Surdas, Mirabhai, Chaitanya, Sahajananda Svami (Swaminarayana), and a thousand other God-intoxicated revolutionaries fearlessly revived the people's faith Sanatana Dharma during the Islamic holocaust in northern India. Without the practical leadership and hard work of these many bhakti-inspired saints, Sanatana Dharma would most likely have been annihilated by the Abrahamic purveyors of genocide hundreds of years ago.

The biographies of many hundreds of Rajarshis - or courageous and implacable God-realized kings - are recorded in the Puranas. Such philosopher-kings were often known as Chakravartins, due to the fact that they ruled their kingdoms while wielding the figurative “Wheel of Dharma”. Such Chakravartins and Rajarshis were at once the personifications of both Dharmic spirituality and martial nobility. Such rulers exhibited qualities that represented the very best of both the spiritual and the practical worlds. They were philosopher-kings, ascetic-warriors, saintly-rulers, and martial-yogis. These spiritual men-of-action were capable of delivering a profound and moving discourse on Dharma one day, and then leading an army of multiple phalanxes into bloody battle to defend Dharma the next. These Chakravartins were saints-of-action! They are also perfect models of the qualities that we so desperately need in Hindu leaders today.

The Dharmic world is waiting with fervent yearning for the arrival of such Chakravartins today, who will be able to save Sanatana Dharma with the intensity of their devotion, and the powerful authority of their sovereign will.

How many untold thousands of true brahmana (intellectuals/priests) leaders like Chanakya have helped to preserve Sanatana Dharma and served as brave guardians of Dharmic culture? How many saints have served as trusted advisors to kings and empires throughout the history of India, helping to steer the great “ship of state” toward to the path of Dharma?

How many unlimited numbers of fearless yogis, gurus, acharyas, and saints have worked endlessly to keep Sanatana Dharma alive in the face of terrible challenges, conquests, persecutions, and betrayals from within the likes of which so many of today’s "Hindu activists" living in the lap of comfort in Twenty-first Century America, New Delhi, and Mumbai, can only pretend to comprehend, but can never hope to imitate?

Did Swami Vivekananda ignore the real world, or did he fearlessly engage the world, traveling thousands of miles from the only home he knew in order to share the light of Sanatana Dharma with an uncaring world? What of such contemporary spiritual soldiers as Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, or Sri Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, or Dr. David Frawley (Pandit Sri Vamadeva Shastri), or Sri Shastri Pandurang Athawale? It has only been due to the hard work of such sages as these that Sanatana Dharma has been preserved for as long as it has.

Sanatana Dharma will be saved by the emergence of many more such saints and leaders in the immediate future - and such saintly leaders will arise, not from the stars above, but from the ranks of the Hindu community itself. Ours is not a messianic, faith-based religion. Unlike the Abrahamic sects, spiritually-inspired Hindus do not sit in prayer huts and wait for messiahs, saviors, or avataras (the next of whom will not be arriving for another 420,000 years!). We don't hide in prayer closets as the world burns around us hoping only for our own salvation. Again, this is only a childish stereotype of the religious Hindu. Rather, Hindus are a very practical and innovative people. When times are dire, God-inspired leadership always arises from within the Hindu community.

My message to the Hindu community is this: if you want to see an empowered and fearless Hindu leadership arise to lead Dharma into the Twenty-First Century, then YOU must become the leaders you seek. And you must do so, not out of a craving for money, fame, or power, but as a devotional offering of your life humbly surrendered at the divine feet of Bhagavan. True Hindu leadership can only arise from within the Hindu community itself.

It will only be God-empowered Hindu leaders, fueled by the blissful rays of bhakti, fearless in the face of opposition, and dedicated to giving their lives for the greater benefit of the Hindu People and the Dharma Nation, who will be capable of leading Sanatana Dharma and of securing its future in the years to come. Indeed, IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE GOD-EMPOWERED that such leaders will be ready, equipped, and able to storm into the world unafraid and confident in their ability to compel positive change upon society, politics, and culture. It is only the power of bhakti that can fuel such dedication and fearlessness.

Bhakti can be the only motivational force strong enough to ensure the degree of self-sacrifice necessary to create true leadership. It is not enough to identify yourself as a "Hindu activist" merely because you find Sanatana Dharma interesting, inspiring, a neat culture that shouldn't disappear, or just because you somehow think it's your ethnic heritage. Such trivial concerns are not enough to promote effective action. The only way a Hindu leader will be truly effective is if he/she has had a direct vision of God in his/her heart so powerful that they see it as their own personal service to Bhavagan to teach others how to love Him. Any lesser motivation only leads to the invisible chains of ego. Only when we have leaders who are on fire with devotion (bhakti) to God will Dharma be saved.

Throughout the history of Sanatana Dharma, bhakti has served as a powerful social force, and has consequently served to change the course of human history. Bhakti will once again serve as a social force today as we face a world that is yearning for truth, for goodness, and for meaningful relief from the manifold sufferings produced by the failed offerings of the cold, secular world we have created. The life-enhancing power of bhakti, coupled with honest and fearless leadership, will bring about nothing less that the Dharma Revolution that we need in our age. I urge you to be Chakravartins.

The Author:

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya (Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D.) is an American who has been practicing Sanatana Dharma for over 35 years. He has a Ph.D. in Religious Studies and is recognized by the global Hindu community as one of the leading Hindu Acharyas (Spiritual Preceptors) in the nation. With a large international following of both Indian and Western students, Sri Acharya Ji is especially renowned for his highly authentic approach to Dharmic spirituality, his authoritative and scholarly method of teaching, and his clear emphasis on serious spiritual practice and direct experience of self-realization and knowledge of God. He has lectured on Sanatana Dharma at such prestigious institutions as Harvard University, Columbia, Rutgers, Cornell, Northwestern, as well as for such Fortune 500 companies as Ford Motor Corporation and Lucent Technology. He is the Founder and President of the International Sanatana Dharma Society.

His primary websites are:




Please help us spread this message far and wide. If you found this article helpful to you in your own understanding of the spiritual path, please forward it on to others so that they too may derive spiritual benefit.

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Accepting Pakistan as a Failed Nation-State

Accepting Pakistan as a Failed Nation-State

Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D.
Center for the Study of Religion and Civilization

On November 3, 2007 Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf declared a state emergency across Pakistan, imposed martial law, and suspended that nation’s Constitution. In the capital of Islamabad, soldiers forcibly entered the Supreme Court, surrounded judges' homes, put opposition leaders under house arrest, and began rounding up thousands of peaceful political activists and politicians. On Monday, November 5th, thousands of lawyers took to the streets to protest the illegal imposition of martial law in their country. Musharraf’s response was to have hundreds of these peaceful lawyers violently dragged through the streets and arrested. In the last two days alone, an estimated minimum of 3,500 people have been forcibly incarcerated as political prisoners.

For those Pakistan watchers who are familiar with the tragic history of this artificially created state, this latest crackdown on democracy and freedom by a governing Islamist elite that has imposed dictatorship on its citizens for most of its 60 years of existence, comes as no surprise.

Originally constituting the western provinces of India, Pakistan’s artificial establishment came about on August 14, 1947 as an Islamic bulwark against what the British feared would be an eventually powerful and prosperous Hindu India that could in the future possibly rival its own colonial interests. Previous to 1947, there was never an historical political entity known as “Pakistan” (indeed, the very term “Pakistan” itself was coined from an acronym of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan). In the last 60 years, Pakistan has instigated three major wars and one minor war against its democratic neighbor of India. Pakistan is a country that has been riddled since its manufacture with a unsettling history of perennial dictatorships, martial law, political and religious repression, persecution of minorities, horrendous ethnic strife, state-sponsored terrorism, and an irreparably failed economy deceptively propped up by the infusion of multi-billions of U.S. tax-payers’ dollars.

To the tremendous bewilderment of many, the Bush administration has insisted upon making Pakistan a key ally in the war on terror despite the fact that Pakistan has always been itself one of the most insidiously unremitting state sponsors of terrorism in the world. It was the infamous ISI secret intelligence agency of Pakistan that founded and supported the Taliban in its initial take over of Afghanistan and in its ruthless reign until its final overthrow at the hands of the U.S. military. Pakistan has harbored Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda minions in its northwestern frontier territory for the last five years, and refuses to allow U.S. military personnel into the area to capture him. Pakistan has waged a proxy terrorist war against the Hindu civilian population of Kashmir for decades, making hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Hindus refugees in their own country and devastating a region of India that at one time was one of the most beautiful and peaceful places on earth. By the sheer weight of the sum total of its destructive terrorist actions over the years, Pakistan has brazenly shown the world that it not only deserves to be placed squarely within the so-called Axis of Evil formulated by President Bush in 2002 – but that it belongs in the prime spot of prominence in that notorious list!

By every measure of what constitutes a successful nation-state, Pakistan has shown the world since its inception that it is incapable of meeting even the minimal standards of surviving as a viable unified political-social entity.

Pakistan is an artificial political construct in which several diverse and historically rival ethnic groups were arbitrarily forced together into what was supposed to become an Islamic melting pot. Rather, Pakistan has been faced with calls for independence by many of these various ethnic groups, which has in turn led to decades of brutal oppression by the central authorities against ethnic activists. Like Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Pakistan is destined to be rent asunder by these contrasting ethnic interests in the very near future. Pakistan’s 165 million long-suffering people would be significantly better off if this natural process of political devolution were allowed to occur.

Rather than continuing to support the notion of an impossible to salvage central state, Pakistan should be allowed to naturally devolve into the several smaller states historically comprising the territorial demarcations of its multiple ethnic divisions. Rather than a failed Pakistani state, there should be four independent states of Balochistan, Afghania (the present “North-West Frontier Province” that constitutes the traditional home of the Pashtun people), Punjab, and Sindh, with “Azad” Kashmir reverting back to India.

Nothing less than the naturally occuring disintegration of the present-day Pakistan will ensure the political stability of the region, the assurance of the human and civil rights of the people of Pakistan, and the irradication of the world’s most unstable and dangerous terrorist state. The latest crippling blow to democracy in a long history of such blows must be enough to starkly persuade us that it is time to move on from the failed “Pakistan” experiment.

I would urge all concerned readers to immediately contact their Congress and Senate representatives, or their parliamentary representatives, and demand an end to any continued support to the Pakistani dictatorship.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Sama Darshana: The Nature of True Equality in Sanatana Dharma

Sama Darshana: The Nature of True Equality in Sanatana Dharma

Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D.
(Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya)

International Sanatana Dharma Society

Beginning with the so-called “Enlightenment” era in European history, the ideological doctrine of radical human egalitarianism has become the most sacrosanct dogma in the realms of both politics and culture. The fight for equality has been the foremost social-political concern globally for the past 250 years, inspiring wars, revolutions, Marxist totalitarianism, genocides, and devastating social upheaval. So central has the concept of Radical Egalitarianism been in the modern political landscape that it has often overshadowed every other political, philosophical, and social concern we can think of.

Despite three continuous centuries of forcing “Enlightenment” era notions of equality upon humanity, however, the world’s problems have only gotten infinitely worse. With more poverty, more corruption, more wars, more unethical behavior, an ever-deeper sense of meaningless in the world’s youth, and the increasingly rapid coarsening and degeneration of traditional cultures globally, many intellectuals and spiritually oriented people are today beginning to ask the inevitable question: “Has the dogma of radical egalitarianism actually outlived its usefulness?”

The answer to this question, from the perspective of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) is neither a yes nor a no, but rather leads us to the more philosophically sophisticated question of: “What is the nature of the human person?” For only in knowing this can we understand the true nature and meaning of equality. In the following, I will explain the Dharmic view of equality juxtaposed to the materialist-oriented Radical Egalitarianism that the world has fervently pursued for the last several centuries.

The metaphysical premises of Radical Egalitarianism are based upon an outlook of empiricist materialism that views the human individual as consisting of nothing more than merely the physical, the body. For the materialist, human beings do not have a soul, or an intrinsic essence, that transcends the material body, which is itself composed of nothing more than the combination of chemicals and material substances formed over myriad millennia via the process of evolution. The human individual, for the Radical Egalitarian, is a soulless and ultimately purposeless machine, an automaton whose only meaning lies in whatever material and economic contributions the individual can make to the greater social whole. Thus, one “living body” is just as good as any other.

Such a mechanistic view of the human individual has led not only to the notion of radical equality, but also to the consequent view that all human individuals are ultimately equally worthless. Thus we have seen the birth of the “end justifies the means” form of “ethics” that has arisen amongst the Marxists, and the consequent death and genocide that has resulted from every Communist regime the world has ever known. If all human bodies are of equal worth, then no one individual is of more importance than any other individual. Thus all are equally expendable.

A society that sees humans as soulless is a society that sees human beings as being of no more worth than machines. And machines are simply tools to be used for the benefit of the state. For the Radical Egalitarian, the human being is no more than a means to an end, an object for their own use, rather than a subject worthy of all the dignity, appreciation, and respect that a unique human person deserves.

The Dharmic view of equality and the human person is considerably more sophisticated, compassionate, and thus ethical, than the materialist egalitarian approach. For the conscious and sincere follower of Sanatana Dharma, the human person consists of infinitely more than the mere bodily surface appearance. The old adage that one cannot judge a book by its cover comes to mind when we examine the wisdom of the Dharmic approach.

Rather than simplistically attempting to reduce a human person to being merely the visible material body that one can immediately detect with the senses, Dharma teaches us that the typical human being is actually a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional being, with a material dimension, a causal dimension, and ultimately a spiritual dimension that is not always clearly visible to the untrained eye. The human person consists of a) deha (physical body), b) manas (mind substance, including impressionistic data, memory, etc.), c) buddhi (the rational faculties), d) ahamkara (false, individuating ego), and most importantly e) atman (the true, spiritual self).

According to the Dharma world-view, we certainly are beings who possess bodies – no sane person would deny this immediate empirical fact. Indeed, contrary to the unnatural and illogical conclusions that the Radical Egalitarian draws from this simple fact, from a purely physical perspective, there is actually an almost infinitely great degree of diversity and inequality that is clearly empirically seen. Physically speaking, no two people in the world are really the same. Some are tall, others short. One person is strong, another weak. Some need glasses, hearing aids, or other devices to “even out the playing field” (i.e., pretend that we are all physically equal!), other people are free from physical defects altogether. The diversity we find in physical bodies is endless. That is common sense. By extension, when looking at the minds and the intellectual capacities of various individuals, we clearly see that some are more intelligent than others. Some are more naturally artistic and creative, whereas some are more analytical and cerebral. Some people will have mental or emotional challenges, such as psychosis, bipolar disorder, or retardation, others have minds so healthy as to allow them to view reality with tremendous clarity.

Egoic desires, preferences and goals, too, are as diverse in content and quantity as are the numerous people we see around us. Some aspire to become great world leaders. Others desire wealth, or fame, or romantic love. Some people, by contrast, seem to have a profound yearning to know God, and serve their fellow beings with humility, simplicity, deep compassion, and quiet determination. We are all different from one another. Thus, we are all in so many ways unequal in our appearance, our abilities, our preferences, and our desires.

Rather than attempting to lie to ourselves and artificially fly in the face of clearly discernable empirical facts, Sanatana Dharma encourages all human beings to respect each other, honor our differences, and work together in compassion, dignity and harmony, despite our undeniable recognition of all our many differences. Sanatana Dharma (the Eternal Natural Way), thus gives us the empowerment to live in accordance with the natural order of the universe in a manner that is beneficial to all.

For Dharma, the realm of true equality lies not on the physical, mental, intellectual, or egoic planes, but in the realm of spirit. Having God as our sole source, sustainer, and ultimate destiny, we all share in the same parent. From a spiritual perspective, then, in the deepest essence of who we are as pure spiritual beings (atman), we are all equally the children of God.

Your true, spiritual self (atman) does not have color, nor dimension, nor race, nor class, nor gender. In spirit, you are neither a capitalist, nor a communist. You are neither Indian, nor Black, nor White nor Latin. Rather, your true self is the eternal, perfect, blissful spiritual center of your everyday existence: Atman.

Transcending both the bodily dimensions of life and all limited materiality, your true self finds itself currently situated in your body due only to your own free-will desires, motivations, consciousness, and actions of the past. Karma is the causal antecedent of all the diverse material bodies that we see around us. While our bodies and minds are all radically different, however, the souls of every living being are all equally held in the compassionate glance of God’s merciful and loving gaze. To God, we are all equally His children, temporarily separated from Him, but all destined to one day again be in His loving embrace.

Equality is an exceedingly important goal toward which we should all aspire. In the political realm, Dharma calls upon each of us to always be compassionate, just, and fair to all we encounter, no matter how different they may seem to us in physical appearance. The only truly pure equality that exists, however, is that equality that exists on the spiritual realm. Thus, in the transcendental eyes of the yogi, or pure sage, all living being are seen with equal vision (sama darshina).

This concept of spiritually-inspired equal vision is beautifully explained to us by Lord Sri Krishna in His famous Bhagavad Gita (Song of God). In the 18th verse of chapter 5, Lord Krishna instructs His devotee Arjuna in the following way:

Brahmane gavi hastini
Shuni caiva shvapake cha
Panditah sama-darshinah

“The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge,
sees with equal vision [sama-darshina]
the learned and gentle priest, a cow, an elephant,
a dog or an outcaste.”

Indeed, because the humble sage views the diverse beings around him, not as mere mechanistic bodies, but as all possessing a pure spirit soul (atman), he does not even see the difference between different species of life, what to speak of different kinds of human beings! To the sage, the soul of the cow, and the dog, and the elephant is just a worthy of dignity, respect, and spiritual equality as is the soul contained in the human being. Sama Darshina, or equal spiritual vision, is the highest form of equality toward which we can all aspire – for it sees the inherent equality that exists in the spiritual essence of all living beings. Seeing all beings as our spiritual brothers and sisters, we will then, by natural extension, offer all people our respect on the political, social, cultural, and economic realms.

The truly equal society, then, is the Dharmic society, a society comprised of citizens who aspire toward the finer and nobler spiritual aspirations of life, and who thus view the world from a spiritual perspective. That nation which will most justly serve the interests of its people is the Dharma Nation. Make yourself a truly worthy citizen of God’s Dharma Nation by spiritualizing your own vision and viewing your neighbors and fellow living beings as the atmans they truly are. Begin the Dharma Revolution in your own life!

For further information on Sanatana Dharma, please visit Dharma Central today:

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Embracing the Meaning of Our Human Existence

Embracing the Meaning of Our Human Existence

By Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D.
(Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya)

Who among us has never, at some contemplative point in our lives or another, asked ourselves the truly big questions, questions about the ultimate meaning of this world, and of our lives in it? Questioning the reason for our human existence is a very natural pursuit on the part of any human being. Indeed, unlike any other species of life, human beings alone have been gifted by God with the unique cognitive ability to engage in self-reflection upon our very own existence as human beings. To be human means to question what it means to be human.

It is especially when such existential questions arise in our minds that we find ourselves understandably turning to the precise fields of knowledge that deal most directly with such questions: the sister fields of religion and philosophy. In the following, I will answer this universal query from the perspective of the most ancient religio-philosophical system on earth, Sanatana Dharma.

The nature of existence has been dealt with by many philosophers, both Western and Asian, from the beginning of time. Whether we are speaking of Thomas Aquinas and his metaphysical distinction of existence and essence, Soren Kierkegaard and his attempts to come to grips with the problem of existence from a Protestant perspective, the Existentialists of the 20th Century, or the Samkhya and Vedanta schools of Sanatana Dharma, the nature of our existence has been on the minds of some of history’s greatest thinkers.

The most basic of all philosophical questions that can be asked is: Why do human beings exist? When I open my eyes in the morning, why is it that there is something rather than nothing? In order to sufficiently analyze this question, the question itself really needs to be divided into two closely related questions: a) why do we exist at all, b) why do we exist as human beings. I’ll try to answer both from the perspective of Yoga spirituality and Sanatana Dharma.

According to the ancient wisdom of Dharma, we exist to begin with because it’s our very innate nature to exist. The sacred scriptures of both Yoga and Sanatana Dharma teach us that our true, innermost nature is that we are atman, or eternal units of consciousness. We have the Absolute (Brahman, or God) as both our causative and substantial source, and as the ontological sustainer of our existential being. Having God as our underlying source, it necessarily follows that we naturally share in many of God’s essential attributive qualities. Because we participate in God’s innate attributes - and if not to a quantitatively equivalent degree, then certainly to a qualitative one - we too share in many of God’s qualities. One of those attributes that both God and we have in common is necessary existence. In other words, both God and we ourselves (atmans, or souls) are eternal by our inherent nature. God and individual atmans cannot but exist. To go out of existence is simply not within the realm of our capability.

Never was there a time when we came into being, and never will there be a time when we cease to exist. So, in a way, we exist because we cannot but exist, being purely spiritual beings in essence. Such is our nature, for it is the nature of God, the ultimate source of our being.

A deeper question than the principle of necessary existence, however, is: why is it the case that we were even gifted with necessary existence to begin with? Sanatana Dharma answers this in the following manner. Brahman (God) is One (ekam). But as a natural result of the overflowing abundance of the Infinite, God decides to become more than One. God thus becomes One-with-attributes (vishishta-advaita). Consequently, in addition to Brahman, we also have atman (individual selves) and jagat (materiality). As atman, we have our own individual existence in attributive relationship with Brahman (God) in order to know, and love, and serve Brahman.

The second part of our question on human existence – “why do we exist as human beings?” – can then be understood from understanding the first part. As beings who partake in God’s necessary existence and attributive nature, we are currently in a state of self-imposed separation from God due to our self-destructive fascination with ego and the objects of ego. It is ego, and the subsequent selfishness and self-centeredness that result from ego, that produce the various layers of illusory self that we mistakenly identify with our true, spiritual identity.

The “human person” is in actuality a complex symbiosis comprised of several distinct aggregates, including physical body (deha), mind substance, (manas), intellect (buddhi), ego (ahamkara), the vital force (prana), and ultimately atman as the source of consciousness and animating source. While the “human person” is an artificial and temporal construct comprised of these many elements, it is the atman alone that is the true self, and that is eternal, true, beautiful, indestructible, and blissful by its own inherent nature, having God (Brahman) as its source of being.

We thus find ourselves in human form (and sometimes other forms!) in an endlessly unsuccessful attempt to selfishly enjoy ourselves in the illusion that we can have a meaningful existence without the benefit of God’s love. We are identifying with the temporal instead of the eternal, with the shallow instead of the profound, with the material instead of the spiritual, with the illusory instead of the real.

The meaning of life in human form is to thus reverse this negative and self-defeating tendency to serve our ego, and to instead once again serve God. We are here, as human beings, to transcend our merely human nature, to re-embrace our true identity as eternal spiritual beings, and to partake of the Divine nature that is our birthright, that is our natural state of being, and that is our true home. We are here to know, and to love, and to serve the Divine.

In Sanatana Dharma, God is presented as the source of all goodness, acceptance, compassion, and non-judgmental love. God is embraced and loved without restrictions, without fear, without force, and without loss. This is a very different conception of the Absolute when compared to the notion we find in the Western, Abrahamic religious constructs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Unlike in the Abrahamic religions, in Sanatana Dharma we find a concept of God as not only being a thoroughly transcendent source of reality, but also as a lovingly imminent and intimate friend who provides us all with a means for achieving immediate knowledge, and a direct and ecstatic experience of Him.

The path of Sanatana Dharma offers us such profoundly philosophical works as the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, and Vedas for the unfailing guidance and knowledge necessary to comprehend life’s meaning. It also offers us a systematic path of spiritual practice that leads directly to a personal experience of the Divine. This path includes the ancient and highly effective processes of Yoga, meditation, puja, and devotion to God.

To truly know the answer to the meaning of human life, however, it is not enough ultimately to merely engage in an intellectual understanding of Truth. Rather, we need to personally experience the sweet taste of Truth as the immediate presence of God in our hearts and in our lives. To experience the profound bliss of God’s presence in your life, and to truly know why we have the joy of existence, please explore the profound depths of spiritual realization that Sanatana Dharma has to offer you. To be human is to ask.

The Author:

Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D. (Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya) is an American who has been practicing Sanatana Dharma for over 30 years. He has a Ph.D. in Religious Studies and is recognized by the global Hindu community as one of the leading Hindu Acharyas (Spiritual Preceptors) in the nation. With a large international following of both Indian and Western students, Sri Acharya Ji is especially renowned for his highly authentic approach to Dharmic spirituality, his authoritative and scholarly approach to teaching, and his clear emphasis on serious spiritual practice and direct experience of self-realization and knowledge of God. He has lectured on Sanatana Dharma at such prestigious institutions as Harvard University, Columbia, Rutgers, Cornell, Northwestern, as well as for such companies as Ford Motor Corporation and Lucent Technology. He is the Founder and President of the International Sanatana Dharma Society. To contact Sri Acharya-ji, email him at: info@dharmacentral.com.

His primary websites are:







Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Be a Concious Hindu!

Be a Conscious Hindu!

By Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D.
(Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya)

The number of Hindus currently living in our world is truly impressive. According to reliable sources, there are as many as a staggering one-billion Hindus in the world today. There are as many as three-million Hindus living in the U.S. alone. Indeed, if you found yourself drawn to reading this column, you are yourself most likely one of this teeming number of self-identified Hindus. While the numbers of Hindus in the world may be impressive, however (and the numbers are indeed to be seen as a source of pride), numbers alone don’t always point to the actual strength of a religion.

The number of adherents of a religion do not, after all, always correspond to the quality of the individuals practicing the religion. And it is really the inner strength of the individual religious persons that is the source of the outer strength of any religion. This is the case for Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) as much as any other religion.

Religion is ultimately not just a numbers game. Rather it is a matter of personal conviction, depth of realization, and inner spiritual experience. Religion is ultimately a radically personal experience, and not just a group dynamic or a demographic statistic. This truth being the case, I have made a distinction between two types of “Hindus” in the world today. There are what I call “Nominal Hindus” and “Conscious Hindus”. The real question for you is: Which of these two types of Hindus are you?

A Nominal Hindu is a Hindu in name only. That is, they have no difficulty necessarily saying that they’re Hindu. That comes easy enough. But this mostly cultural identity is often as far as the typical Nominal Hindu is willing to go into exploring the depths of their spirituality. The real question, of course, is not just are you willing to call yourself Hindu…but are you consciously and sincerely practicing Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism)?

Like the Nominal Hindu, the Conscious Hindu also has no difficulty proclaiming “mein hindu hun.” “I am a Hindu.” But unlike the Nominal Hindu, the Conscious Hindu actually knows what this claim means…and he knows so as a result of his own personal experience. The Conscious Hindu not only identifies with Sanatana Dharma, the most ancient and profound spiritual system the world has ever known, but he also has immense pride in this heritage, and isn’t afraid to show it!

More, the Conscious Hindu knows that it is his duty to not only revel in the greatness of Dharmic culture, but that to be a true Hindu he must also do everything in his power to live the life of a Hindu. A Conscious Hindu joyfully embraces the Hindu lifestyle.

As a Conscious Hindu, you must be knowledgeable about the philosophy and teachings of Sanatana Dharma, reading the Bhagavad Gita daily and familiarizing yourself with the meaning of Dharma. More, you must know that it isn’t enough to merely read about Sanatana Dharma, but that you must also practice its principles (puja, meditation, arati, Yoga, etc.) and ethics (non-stealing, not lying, being noble, etc.). Finally, it also is not even enough merely to practice Dharma by rote, but you must practice with the ultimate end-goal in mind: The goal of Sanatana Dharma – Hinduism – is to know, and love, and serve Bhagavan – God. The ultimate purpose of both Hinduism, and life itself, is having deep and abiding Bhakti – devotion toward God.

It is ultimately only by living your life as a Conscious Hindu - reclaiming your spiritual heritage in Sanatana Dharma and joyously practicing this path – that you will know the true happiness, peace, fulfillment and joy that your spiritual tradition has to offer you. Become a Conscious Hindu, live the Hindu lifestyle, and begin to experience the true joy of the presence of God in your life.