If someone asks ‘have you seen God’ how do we answer?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you. So, if someone asks, have you seen God? How can we answer? Generally, I would say there are three different ways to answer this question. First is that the idea that visibility is a proof for existence or is the evidence of existence is neither scientific nor logical.
The idea that visibility is the proof of existence is not scientific because in science itself there are so many things which we never see. Actually, the more science is advancing, the more science is proposing more and more invisible particles. You see, earlier there were only electrons but now there are mesons and neutrinos and there are bosons.
Comparatively speaking, if you see, religion asks for faith only in one invisible God. But science is asking for faith in so many invisible particles. So, even in science, we don’t ask that, you know, if I have to believe in something then you have to show that to me.
Even in science, we don’t do that and especially as science becomes more and more advanced, the less and less we make those demands. Then you go into quantum physics, you go into relativity. Less and less things can be seen.
So, we don’t make that kind of demand in science. So, why do you make that in spirituality alone? That’s the first point. Now related to the first point is the second point that the sign of intelligence is to infer invisible principles from visible things.
I repeat, the sign of intelligence is not just to stick to visible things but to infer invisible principles from visible things. So, for example, Newton saw the fruitful. There is a visible fruit and it visibly fell down.
Now what makes Newton special is that from that visible, he inferred the invisible principle of gravity. Isn’t it? In fact, if you look at all advances in knowledge, whether it is scientific knowledge or any kind of knowledge, it all involves inferring invisible principles, inferring invisible patterns, inferring the subtle from the gross, inferring invisible principles from visible actions is the sign of intelligence in practically all fields of knowledge. So, similarly, even in the field of spirituality, we look at the world and we see that the things in this world are very intricate, very complicated and so intricate that they cannot even come by chance.
Even if we say they have come from the laws and the laws themselves are so intricate, so precise, the laws do not come by chance. So, it’s a logical inference which is perfectly consistent with the kind of inferences that we do in other fields of knowledge that we talk about inferring the existence of a super intelligent being, whom we call as God, from what we see in this world. Ralph Waldo Emerson said that all that I have seen increases my faith in the one whom I have not seen.
All that I have seen, what I have seen in this world, the beauty, the artistry of nature increases my faith in the one whom I have not seen. So, actually, sticking to the visible is not the sign of intelligence. Animals, say like a camel or a horse or whatever, it sticks to the visible.
It sees a mirror, it keeps chasing the mirror. Seeing the mirror and chasing the mirror. So, sticking to the visible can be a sign of unintelligence, can be a sign of animalistic level of intelligence.
So, human intelligence means to look for abstract principles beyond the concrete things. So, that’s how we look at God. And thirdly, we can say, there is a process by which we can experience God and we can also see God.
So, this says, now even in principle, even if I become the most educated physicist in the whole world, not just educated, I am the most talented, I am the most educated, I have the most contacts, I have done a lot of studies, even after doing all that, in principle also, I will not be able to see the Higgs boson. All that I will see is some influence of things by which I will infer its existence. That means, in science, no matter how much I progress, still I will only have to do inferences.
But in spirituality, if I follow a process, then it’s not that I will only have to keep doing inferences. I will get direct experiences. So, in that sense, actually spirituality, especially bhakti yoga, is more scientific than science.
No, it’s not just scientific, it is more scientific than science. Because science proposes things which will never become well-perceived in the world. But spirituality talks about the existence of God who will become well-perceived.
So, have I seen God? No, I have not seen God. But I know that by following this process, I will move towards God and whatever landmarks are there on that process, I have experienced some of those landmarks. So, it is said that God is the source of all happiness.
And the closer we go to God, the more higher happiness we experience. And the more higher happiness we experience, the more we will crave for lower pleasures. And that is something which I have experienced.
It’s not that I am free from all lower pleasures. Nor is it that I experience all higher happiness. But still, I have experienced some of the things.
And because I have experienced some of the things, I have faith that I am on the path to God. So, it is said that I have not seen God, but I have seen the landmarks on the path to God. I have got experiences which convince me that I am on the way to God.
And those experiences are my basis for going onwards. Essentially, visibility is not a pre-condition, it is not a prerequisite or a proof for existence. Nor is, actually intelligence remains moving from visible things to invisible principles.
And, unlike science, which will never give us direct perception of some of its tenets, spirituality will give us direct experience. And some of the experiences on the way to that ultimate experience, I have got now. And that’s why I continue this way.