Understanding the fleeting nature of “Happiness”
Realising you’re happy and consequently puncturing that happiness—is a manifestation of the self-reflexive quality of human consciousness. It reflects our ability not only to experience emotions but also to have thoughts about those experiences, including the experience of happiness. At the most immediate level, we have sensory experiences and emotional reactions. These are our raw, unfiltered engagements with the world around us. But atop this immediate experience, we have a secondary layer of experience: our thoughts about our experiences. This secondary layer is where we interpret, judge, anticipate, and reflect.
The paradox here is that this second layer of experience can intrude upon and alter the first. By realizing we’re happy, we move the experience of happiness from the immediate realm into the realm of reflection and analysis. This can have a distancing effect, making the happiness less vivid and more abstract. The “self” that is experiencing happiness is no longer fully integrated with the experience; part of it has stepped aside to observe.
The awareness of happiness can also bring about a sense of sadness or melancholy. This is because our reflective consciousness is not only evaluative but also temporal; it exists in time. When we realize we’re happy, we also realize that the moment is fleeting, that it will pass. This injects a sense of loss or nostalgia into the current experience, dampening the happiness with a layer of sadness. There’s also the pressure that once identified, the feeling of happiness must be maintained, which turns it into an object of concern.
In some Eastern philosophies, for example, the ultimate state of happiness or enlightenment is one that transcends both happiness and sadness, existing in a state of pure “beingness” that is beyond dualities. Western philosophies often engage deeply with the notion of existential angst, the idea that human freedom and awareness are both a gift and a curse, capable of both elevating and diminishing our experiences. Humans are narrative creatures. We don’t just experience things; we also construct stories around our experiences, which become a part of the experience itself. Realizing you’re happy can sometimes feel like a narrative high point, a climax. But climaxes are, by their nature, transitional; they mark the point where a story begins to move toward its conclusion. This can create a sense of impending descent, which can tinge even the most joyous moments with a shade of melancholy. There’s a compelling argument to be made for the richness added to our lives by our ability to reflect on our experiences. This meta-experience, the experience of experiencing, adds depth and texture to our lives. It’s the thing that allows us to appreciate art, to fall in love, to engage in complex moral reasoning. But it comes at a cost: the cost of immediacy. The more we reflect on our experiences, the less we’re able to engage with them directly. It’s like being the actor and the audience at the same time. This dual nature of consciousness is both a blessing and a curse. While it allows us the richness of introspection and self-awareness, it also sets up a scenario where the observer can interfere with the experience.
When you realize you’re happy, you’re essentially stepping out of the experience to label it. The moment you do that, you bring in the concept of time. Emotions, when lived, are timeless. They’re states of being. But when you observe them, you also acknowledge their temporality—they become moments that have started and will eventually end. This implicit understanding of the fleeting nature of happiness casts a shadow on the experience, thereby altering its composition and introducing elements of sadness or anxiety.
The awareness of happiness can trigger broader questions about the nature of existence, purpose, and meaning. Happiness is often viewed as an ‘end,’ a goal in life. Once achieved, its realization can create a form of existential vacuum, a questioning of ‘what next?’ This moves you out of the emotional experience and into a cognitive one, involving existential questions that can often be more unsettling than comforting.
Your realization also exemplifies the duality inherent in life experiences. There’s a push and pull between opposing forces: happiness and sadness, awareness and ignorance, temporality and timelessness. Some philosophical traditions, particularly those from Eastern philosophies like Buddhism, suggest that the ultimate state of enlightenment is one that transcends this duality to experience a state of ‘oneness.’ In that state, the act of observing happiness and the experience of happiness itself become one unified experience, without a division that could puncture the emotion. When we experience happiness, it often fits into a story we have about what makes us happy and why. This narrative self can be in constant tension with the experiencing self. The act of realizing you’re happy is a narrative act—it fits this moment of joy into your broader life story. But life stories are complex and filled with ups and downs. Fitting a moment into a narrative can mean subjecting it to all the complexities and contradictions of that narrative, which can dilute the purity of the experience.
On the one hand, mindfulness and self-awareness teach us to observe our feelings, thoughts, and experiences. On the other hand, the very act of observing can sometimes alter or even negate the experience, particularly with transient states like happiness. In quantum physics, the observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation makes on the phenomenon being observed. In psychology, too, observing one’s thoughts and feelings can change them. This is the basis of therapies like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), where the act of observing and questioning one’s thoughts can lead to emotional regulation.
When you realize you’re happy and become acutely aware of that happiness, you might also become aware of the fleeting nature of emotions. This could potentially lead to a decrease in the intensity of your happiness, making it a self-limiting state. The joy is punctured by the awareness of its temporary nature or by the anxiety of losing it. It’s crucial to distinguish between mindfulness and hyper-awareness. Mindfulness means accepting each moment as it is, including your happiness, without clinging to it or fearing its loss. Hyper-awareness, on the other hand, involves scrutinizing the experience so closely that you can’t simply be in it. You’re essentially stepping out of the experience to examine it.
Some of the ways to deal with it:
1. The first step in navigating this paradox is to accept the transient nature of all emotional states. Once we make peace with the ebb and flow of life, the realization that our happiness is temporary becomes less threatening.
2. Aim for a detached form of observation. Observe your happiness without clinging to it, just as you would observe your breath during meditation.
3. Shifting the focus from “Being Happy” to “Being”. When your focus is simply on ‘being,’ without labeling the state you are in, you eliminate the self-imposed pressure to sustain any emotional state, be it happiness or otherwise.
4. Often the anxiety of losing happiness arises from either past experiences or future uncertainties. Dwelling in the present can alleviate that concern.
Perceptions – Consensus Subjectivity vs. Objective Truth
Perception is the process by which sensory information is interpreted, organized, and consciously experienced. This involves not just the mechanical aspects of sensation, but also the psychological elements that interpret and prioritize this data, often filtered through individual beliefs, experiences, and cultural norms. Perception is an interface between an individual’s interior world and the objective reality surrounding them.
In a perfect, objective world, there would be a single, indisputable truth about everything. But humans aren’t perfectly objective beings; our cognitive and sensory apparatus has its limitations. A snake perceives heat differently than a human; a dog perceives scent differently than a human. While the world itself might possess a “universal truth,” our ability to perceive it is shaped by our limitations. If you act with “100% completeness,” it would mean that you have acted in full alignment with your capabilities and intentions. But people perceive your actions based on their own sets of experiences, expectations, and biases, not necessarily based on your intentions. Hence, perceptions can vary even for a universally “complete” action. While the act itself might be independent, its interpretation is not. That’s where perception comes in. Perceptions may be “limited” and “formed by other or for other,” but they play a critical role in social dynamics, ethical considerations, and interpersonal relations.
People rely on perceptions because it’s an accessible way to interpret and navigate the complex world. But it is essential to differentiate between individual perceptions and collective or societal ones. The latter often serves as a “consensus reality,” providing a common framework for communication and understanding. So, while perceptions are limited by their very nature, they are a necessary component of human interaction and society. The real issue arises when perceptions are mistaken for objective truth, ignoring their inherently subjective and conditional nature. We can indeed question the “reality” of different perceptions and argue that they’re all illusory in some way, but as long as humans have subjective experiences, perceptions will continue to differ. And in that diversity of perception lies the complexity, and beauty, of human experience.
Question: can we have any objective experience?
The notion of “objective experience” is a bit of an oxymoron. Experiences are inherently subjective because they are mediated by individual sensory apparatus, psychological states, and sociocultural backgrounds. However, certain frameworks try to minimize subjectivity to get as close to “objectivity” as possible. In the scientific method, for example, experiments are designed to be replicable regardless of who performs them. The idea is to eliminate as much human subjectivity as possible so that the results point to some “objective” truth about the world.
There can be cracks in achieving objectivity in scoring or mathematical experiments as Measurement tools are designed and interpreted by humans, who bring their own sets of assumptions and limitations to the table.
When a majority of individuals agree on a particular experience or observation, this doesn’t necessarily make it “objective” in the sense of an unchanging truth that exists independent of human perception. Rather, it forms a “consensus reality”—a shared framework of understanding that facilitates communal living and communication. While this consensus reality may be treated as “objective” within a specific cultural or social context, it’s not the same as a universal truth that holds across all times and places.
For example, money is a societal consensus. We agree to give paper and metal tokens a certain value. Within the context of a particular economy, the value of a dollar or euro is an “objective” fact, but this objectivity is contingent on shared belief and participation in economic systems. The material paper has no intrinsic value; its worth is entirely constructed and agreed upon.
However, Truth, in its purest form, shouldn’t have different meanings or interpretations. In philosophy, something that is “objectively true” would be true regardless of individual or cultural beliefs—a universal fact. However, accessing or understanding such truths is a challenging endeavor precisely because we are subjective beings.
Possessive possessions
As human beings, our relationship with possessions is multi-faceted and complex, steeped in a variety of psychological, sociological, and cultural influences. Why do we cherish and cling to material objects? How do these objects gain such profound significance in our lives that their loss can trigger profound distress?
The roots of possessiveness can be traced back to our earliest stages of development. Attachment theory, proposed by psychologist John Bowlby, suggests that as infants, we form attachments to our caregivers, perceiving them as a source of security. Objects, such as a favourite blanket or toy, can also become “attachment objects,” imbued with emotional significance and seen as sources of comfort and safety.
As we grow older, this tendency to form attachments does not diminish but simply evolves. We begin to assign emotional significance to a wider range of objects: a cherished book, a childhood home, a prized car, an heirloom passed down through generations. These objects are no longer just inanimate items; they become extensions of our identity, symbolic representations of our personal history, achievements, relationships, and aspirations.
These possessions reflect who we are, who we have been, and who we aspire to be. They’re a reflection of our interests, experiences, values, and dreams. A stamp collection is not just a bunch of stamps; it’s a testament to a person’s love for history and travel. A guitar is not just an instrument; it’s an emblem of someone’s passion for music and creativity.
However, our deep emotional attachment to our possessions has a flip side: the fear of losing them. The possibility of someone taking away our prized possessions triggers a fear of losing a part of ourselves, of our identities being eroded. This fear is the seed of possessiveness. We resist anyone interfering with our possessions, seeing such interference as an intrusion into our personal domain, a threat to our sense of self.
Our possessions also offer us a sense of control in a world often marked by uncertainty and unpredictability. In a life full of variables beyond our control, our possessions are something we can manage, organize, and control. This perceived control can offer us comfort, helping us navigate the unpredictability of life.
This dynamic of possession and control extends to our relationships as well. We might view our partners, friends, or family members as ‘ours,’ a part of our identity. In healthy relationships, this feeling manifests as a deep sense of connection and commitment. However, when driven by insecurity or fear of loss, it can devolve into possessiveness, stifling the other person’s freedom and autonomy.
Ironically, the attachment to possessions can create both a sense of fullness and emptiness. Fullness, because these objects can offer comfort, joy, and a sense of identity. Emptiness, because possessions, being impermanent, can be lost, damaged, or taken away. We might also feel empty when we realize that possessions, while they can offer temporary happiness, cannot provide the deep, lasting fulfillment we ultimately seek.
In this journey of understanding possessions, it’s critical to consider another aspect, the societal and cultural influences that shape our attitudes towards ownership and possession. Our societies, through advertising, media, and peer pressure, often promote materialism and the idea that acquiring possessions is a path to happiness and success. We’re constantly bombarded with messages that equate possessions with personal worth and social status. This reinforces our attachment to material objects, making them seem even more essential to our identities and well-being.
Take, for example, the car someone drives. It’s more than just a vehicle for transportation; it’s often seen as a status symbol, an outward sign of wealth and success. We assign value to the person based on the value of their car. This societal norm can significantly reinforce our desire to possess and protect our belongings, linking them directly to our self-worth and societal standing.
However, this attachment can lead us into a cycle of endless striving, where we’re constantly seeking the next thing to acquire, hoping it will bring us the satisfaction we crave. But as we’ve often seen, this satisfaction is usually temporary. The excitement of a new purchase eventually fades, and we’re left seeking the next thing, caught in an endless cycle of desire and dissatisfaction.
This cycle of possession and dissatisfaction is also reflected in our relationships. In an attempt to find security and happiness, we may seek to ‘possess’ people, to make them ‘ours.’ This can manifest in various ways, from the relatively benign (e.g., wanting to spend lots of time with a loved one) to the more harmful (e.g., trying to control a partner’s behavior or friendships).
When we treat people as possessions, we run into two main problems. First, people are autonomous beings with their own desires and needs, not objects to be owned or controlled. Trying to ‘possess’ a person invariably leads to conflict and harm. Second, like with material possessions, the security and happiness we seek in ‘possessing’ others are elusive. People change, relationships end, and the sense of security we hoped to find proves fleeting.
The idea of possession also often extends to the intangible elements of our lives, such as ideas, beliefs, and ideologies. These can also become ‘possessions’ we fiercely cling to and defend. For instance, political, religious, or philosophical beliefs often become integral parts of our identity. Just as with material possessions, we can react negatively if these beliefs are challenged, seeing such challenges as attacks on ourselves.
One reason we attach so deeply to these kinds of possessions is that they help to structure our understanding of the world. They provide a framework that makes sense of our experiences, giving us a sense of control and predictability. Therefore, when these beliefs are threatened, it can feel as though our whole understanding of the world is under threat, triggering a defensive reaction.
However, just as with physical possessions, this attachment can lead to problems. When we’re so deeply invested in a particular belief or ideology, it can close our minds to new ideas and perspectives. We can become rigid and inflexible, unable to adapt to new information or changing circumstances.
This rigidity can also lead to conflict with others who hold different beliefs. When our identities are so tied up with our beliefs, it can be challenging to engage in open, respectful dialogue with those who see the world differently. Instead, we may feel threatened by these differing viewpoints and respond with hostility.
Yet, one might ask, how can we not hold onto beliefs? Aren’t they necessary for making sense of the world? While it’s true that beliefs play a crucial role in our understanding of the world, the problem arises when we cling to them rigidly, refusing to consider alternative viewpoints or update our beliefs in the light of new information.
Just as we can enjoy material possessions without being attached to them, we can hold beliefs without being enslaved by them. This requires a certain level of open-mindedness, a willingness to question our beliefs and consider new ideas. It also requires a level of humility, an acknowledgment that our understanding of the world is always limited and imperfect.
By developing this kind of flexible, open-minded approach to our beliefs, we can avoid much of the conflict and suffering that comes with rigid attachment. We can engage more productively with those who hold different views, seeing these interactions not as threats, but as opportunities for learning and growth.
The concept of possessions, whether tangible or intangible, thus challenges us to reassess our relationship with the world around us. While possessions can provide a sense of security and identity, our attachment to them can also lead to suffering and conflict.
Faith – reality in unseen ?
The concept of faith is one of the most profound yet elusive aspects of human life. Rooted in the intangible and often transcending the bounds of logical reasoning, faith is a powerful force that shapes our worldviews, influences our actions, and gives meaning to our existence. In its most fundamental form, faith is a complete trust or confidence in something or someone. However, the nature and implications of faith are much more nuanced and multifaceted.
Faith operates in various dimensions of our lives, not just in religious or spiritual contexts. We exhibit faith when we trust our loved ones, when we believe in the promise of a better future, when we have confidence in our abilities despite past failures, and even when we participate in social or economic systems. Faith, therefore, is deeply ingrained in our daily lives, influencing our decisions and perceptions, often without us consciously realizing it.
When it comes to faith in things unseen or events yet to happen, the dynamics become even more complex. This kind of faith typically involves a degree of uncertainty and mystery. It requires a leap beyond the confines of empirical evidence and tangible proof. But why do we, as rational beings, place faith in the unseen or the unknown?
Part of the answer lies in our inherent desire for meaning, purpose, and connection. As conscious beings, we yearn to understand the world around us, to make sense of our experiences, and to feel connected to something greater than ourselves. This quest for understanding and connection often leads us into the realm of the unseen, the unproven, the mysterious. It’s in this realm that faith becomes an essential tool.
Moreover, our experiences shape our faith. Experiences of love, compassion, resilience, and transformation can reinforce our faith in positive values, in humanity, or in a higher power. On the other hand, experiences of pain, loss, or injustice might challenge or even shatter our faith. Nevertheless, it’s often in the midst of adversity that faith evolves and deepens, as we grapple with questions of meaning, purpose, and hope.
The role of faith in our lives can be multifarious. For some, faith in a divine entity brings comfort and guidance. It instills hope during trials and tribulations, fosters a sense of community and belonging, and provides a moral framework for life. For others, faith in human potential and progress fuels the pursuit of knowledge, justice, and innovation.
Does faith have anything to do with what has happened and what’s going to happen? Indeed, faith is often interwoven with our perceptions of the past, present, and future. Past experiences can shape our faith, as we learn from our triumphs and failures, joys and sorrows. Our faith, in turn, influences how we navigate the present and envision the future. It can give us the courage to face challenges, the patience to endure hardships, and the inspiration to dream and create.
At the same time, faith is not about predicting the future with certainty. Rather, it’s about embracing uncertainty with hope and resilience. It’s about daring to dream, to strive, and to love, even when the outcomes are unknown. It’s about trusting in the potential for growth, transformation, and transcendence, regardless of our current circumstances or past experiences.
Is faith real? The reality of faith might not be tangible or measurable, but its impact on human life is undeniable. Across cultures and throughout history, faith has inspired art and literature, fueled social movements, shaped civilizations, and transformed individual lives. Its reality is manifested in the courage of those who dare to dream and create, in the resilience of those who endure suffering with hope, and in the love and compassion that transcend boundaries of race, religion, and ideology.
It’s worth noting, however, that faith is not about passive acceptance or blind allegiance. True faith involves questioning, seeking, and growing. It’s a dynamic, evolving journey rather than a fixed destination. It requires humility to acknowledge the unknown, courage to question and explore, and wisdom to discern truth from illusion. While the nature of faith is complex and elusive, its essence can be encapsulated in the timeless words of Martin Luther King Jr.: “Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”
To deepen our exploration of faith, let’s consider it from various perspectives: philosophical, psychological, sociological, and spiritual.
From a philosophical perspective, faith brings up interesting questions about knowledge and belief. Philosophers have long pondered how we can justify our beliefs or knowledge claims, particularly when they concern the unseen or the unproven. Can faith be considered a form of knowledge? Does it require justification or evidence? Different philosophical traditions offer diverse answers. For instance, the school of pragmatism posits that beliefs (and by extension, faith) can be justified if they yield positive outcomes or experiences.
From a psychological perspective, faith can be viewed as a cognitive and emotional mechanism that helps us navigate uncertainty and complexity. For instance, when we face a difficult decision or an unpredictable situation, faith can provide a sense of direction and confidence. Psychological research has shown that faith (both religious and secular) can contribute to mental well-being, resilience, and prosocial behavior. For instance, faith in one’s abilities (also known as self-efficacy) is a key factor in motivation and achievement.
From a sociological perspective, faith plays a crucial role in social cohesion and collective action. Shared beliefs and values can foster a sense of community and cooperation, enabling societies to function and evolve. For example, faith in democratic values underpins democratic institutions and practices. Moreover, faith can inspire social change. The civil rights movement in the United States, led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., is a powerful example of faith-driven social activism.
From a spiritual perspective, faith is often associated with the relationship between the human soul and the divine or the transcendent. Faith can manifest as trust in divine providence, commitment to spiritual practices, or aspiration for spiritual growth. For instance, in the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred text of Hinduism, Lord Krishna advises Arjuna to perform his duty with faith and without attachment to the results – a principle known as Karma Yoga.
Let’s consider a few examples that illuminate the multifaceted nature of faith. Imagine a student who is preparing for a challenging exam. Her faith in her abilities motivates her to study diligently. She also has faith in the fairness of the educational system and the value of her chosen field of study. This faith sustains her through the stress and uncertainty of the exam period.
Consider also the example of a social activist. He has faith in the possibility of a more just and sustainable world. This faith fuels his advocacy and activism, despite the challenges and setbacks he might face. He also has faith in the power of collective action and the potential for social change.
Finally, contemplate the faith of a spiritual seeker. She has faith in a higher power and a deeper reality beyond the material world. This faith guides her spiritual practices and informs her life choices. Even in the face of doubt or despair, her faith provides a source of strength and solace.
Let’s consider some more aspects of faith: faith as an act of surrender, faith and reason, faith and doubt, and faith as a dynamic process.
- Faith as an Act of Surrender: In many spiritual traditions, faith is often depicted as a surrender, a relinquishing of the illusion of control. When we face life’s uncertainties, we often try to manipulate outcomes according to our desires. However, faith involves trusting the flow of life, even when it does not conform to our expectations. It’s like floating on the surface of a vast ocean, trusting in its currents to guide us, rather than struggling against them. This concept of surrender is not about inaction or defeat, but about embracing life’s unpredictability and recognizing our limited perspective.
- Faith and Reason: Faith and reason are often viewed as conflicting forces, particularly in the discourse between science and religion. However, they can also be seen as complementary aspects of our human quest for understanding. Reason involves the critical examination of evidence and the logical analysis of ideas. It is indispensable in our pursuit of empirical knowledge and practical wisdom. Faith, on the other hand, steps in where reason reaches its limits. It enables us to navigate the mysteries of existence, to live with uncertainty, and to aspire for ideals that transcend empirical evidence.
- Faith and Doubt: Doubt is often seen as the antithesis of faith, but it can also be an integral part of the journey of faith. Doubt prompts us to question our beliefs, to seek deeper understanding, and to remain open to new insights. A faith that has never been challenged by doubt may be unexamined or dogmatic. As philosopher Paul Tillich put it, “Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith.”
- Faith as a Dynamic Process: Faith is not a static state but a dynamic process. It evolves as we encounter new experiences, insights, and challenges. Faith is not about clinging to fixed beliefs, but about cultivating a receptive and resilient spirit. It involves not only trusting in something beyond ourselves but also believing in our capacity to learn, grow, and adapt.
To illustrate these aspects, let’s revisit our previous examples. The student preparing for an exam may experience moments of self-doubt and anxiety. However, she can choose to see these challenges as opportunities for growth rather than threats to her faith in her abilities. By acknowledging her doubts, she can deepen her understanding of herself and her aspirations. By surrendering to the process, she can relieve her anxiety and focus on her effort rather than the outcome.
The social activist might face skepticism or opposition, testing his faith in his cause. But rather than deterring him, these challenges can strengthen his commitment and clarify his vision. His faith is not a blind belief but a conscious choice, informed by his understanding of social issues and his conviction in the power of change.
The spiritual seeker may grapple with profound questions about the divine and the nature of existence. Her faith does not prevent her from questioning or exploring different perspectives. Instead, it serves as a compass in her spiritual quest, guiding her through the vast and often confusing landscape of spiritual wisdom.
These examples underscore the richness and complexity of faith. Rather than a monolithic entity, faith is a kaleidoscope of perspectives, experiences, and choices. It is a multifaceted gem, whose beauty and depth are revealed in the light of our personal and collective journeys.
Divinity – an escape to fear ?
As we delve into the concept of divinity, we encounter a landscape of varying interpretations and perceptions, shaped by the human quest for understanding and meaning. Divinity refers to the state of things that are believed to come from a supernatural power or deity, such as a god, or spirit beings, and are therefore regarded as sacred and holy. Such things are regarded as divine due to their transcendental origins or because their attributes or qualities are superior or supreme relative to things of the earthly world.
But why, one might ask, is divinity interpreted differently by different individuals and cultures? And how can something considered divine and universal also be understood subjectively?
While it may seem paradoxical, the reason lies in the intersection of the human cognitive apparatus with the profound mystery that the concept of divinity embodies. Even though divinity may represent universal principles or realities, the ways in which we understand, relate to, and express these principles are inherently influenced by our cultural, psychological, and experiential contexts.
Cultural factors play a significant role in shaping our views of the divine. Different religions and spiritual traditions have unique ways of conceptualizing and relating to divinity, reflecting their historical, cultural, and philosophical contexts. For instance, monotheistic religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism conceive of divinity as a single, all-powerful God, while polytheistic traditions like Hinduism and ancient Greek religion portray divinity in the form of many gods and goddesses, each representing different aspects of reality.
Psychological factors also contribute to the subjective experience of divinity. Our personal beliefs, emotions, experiences, and cognitive processes shape our understanding and experience of the divine. Some people might experience divinity as a personal relationship with a divine being, while others might perceive it as a transcendent state of consciousness or a profound sense of connection with all of life.
As for why divinity appears to wear ‘multiple masks,’ this is again a reflection of the diversity and complexity of human understanding and experience. Just as a multifaceted diamond reflects light in various ways, the concept of divinity can manifest in countless forms, reflecting the myriad ways in which human beings perceive and relate to the mystery of existence.
One might wonder: if the laws of nature are universal, why is our understanding of divinity so diverse? This discrepancy can be understood by considering the difference between objective and subjective realms of knowledge.
The laws of nature belong to the realm of objective knowledge. They can be studied, tested, and validated using the scientific method, which is designed to minimize the influence of individual bias and subjective perception. This is why scientific knowledge, including our understanding of the laws of nature, is largely consistent across different cultures and societies.
On the other hand, our understanding of divinity belongs primarily to the realm of subjective knowledge. It’s rooted in personal experience, cultural context, and introspective understanding, all of which are inherently subjective. While subjective knowledge can be deeply meaningful and transformative, it is also diverse and multi-dimensional, reflecting the complexity of human perception and experience.
Despite this diversity, there may be universal principles or realities underlying our various perceptions of the divine. These might include principles like the interconnectedness of all life, the transformative power of love and compassion, or the existence of a reality that transcends our ordinary perception.
However, just as a map is not the territory it represents, our concepts and images of the divine are not the divine itself. They are human-made representations, shaped by our cognitive capacities and cultural contexts. The divine itself, whatever it may be, likely transcends our human capacities for understanding and conceptualization.
To further elaborate, let’s consider an analogy. Picture a group of people standing around a magnificent sculpture placed in the center of a room, each person looking at the sculpture from a different angle. While they’re all observing the same object, the perspective they have of the sculpture is unique to their standpoint. Some will notice features that are invisible to others, while some aspects remain hidden to everyone. In essence, they are all viewing the same objective reality, yet their individual subjective experiences differ.
This analogy provides some insight into how people perceive divinity. Even though there may exist an objective divine reality (the sculpture), the way people perceive and experience it (their view of the sculpture) is dependent on their individual perspectives. These perspectives are shaped by a variety of factors including personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, and individual psychological make-up.
In other words, the “masks” of divinity that different cultures, religions, and individuals see are representations tailored to their unique viewpoints and contexts. This diversity in divine interpretation does not necessarily imply that divinity itself is subjective or inconsistent, but rather that our understanding and experiences of it are.
Moving forward, it’s important to differentiate between the objectivity of the laws of nature and the subjectivity of our experience and understanding of divinity. The laws of nature operate independently of human perception or consciousness; they govern the physical world whether or not anyone is aware of them. Scientists strive to discover and understand these laws through a methodical, systematic process that aims to be as objective and unbiased as possible.
In contrast, our relationship with divinity is deeply personal and subjective. It depends largely on individual consciousness, belief systems, and experiences. Unlike the laws of nature, our experiences of the divine cannot be measured or empirically verified. They lie beyond the domain of scientific investigation and are instead in the realm of personal and spiritual exploration.
This doesn’t mean that our experiences of the divine are less “real” or valuable than scientific knowledge, just that they operate within a different sphere of human experience and understanding. Both realms – the objective and the subjective, the scientific and the spiritual – are crucial aspects of our quest for knowledge and meaning.
Many of the world’s religious and spiritual traditions point towards the possibility of experiencing divinity directly, beyond conceptual understanding. This direct experience, sometimes described as “mystical” or “transcendent,” is often said to transcend ordinary categories of thought and perception, providing a profound sense of unity, sacredness, or ultimate reality.
However, the path to such experiences is highly individual and cannot be standardized or prescribed. It often involves practices like meditation, contemplation, devotion, ethical living, or service to others, aimed at cultivating qualities like mindfulness, compassion, humility, and openness to the divine.
Ultimately, our understanding and experience of divinity are part of the rich tapestry of human existence, reflecting our deepest yearnings, questions, and potentials. They invite us to explore the mysteries of life, to cultivate virtues and wisdom, and to connect with something greater than ourselves. Despite the diversity of divine interpretations, they all point towards a reality that transcends the limitations of our ordinary perception, inviting us on a journey of discovery, transformation, and awakening.
Abhishek Fanse 