Saturday, June 21, 2008

Why people with better IQ fail to ‘detect’ God?

Two undeniable statements can be drawn from the Godel model

and Ramanuja’s inference –

that rational thought can never penetrate to the Final Ultimate Truth * (Godel)

and that

finites can never prove the Infinite (Ramanuja) (from the previous post)

A question comes here –

how then can we say that God exists,

when his existence can not be proved?

Is this not what the people with high IQ have been saying?

To answer these questions,

we take inputs which are there in these questions themselves.

The inputs are in the form of inferences.

Inference -1 :- If IQ or intelligence does not see or prove or perceive God,

then know that it is inadequate – it (Intelligence ) is finite.

Inference -2 :-This also implies that, that which is not perceived by finite intelligence

must be Infinite!! (that is God)

Inference -3:- This scenario necessitates a search for other tools to know

whether they can be employed to detect or prove or disprove God.

Inference -4:- The irony is that there is no proof needed to establish one that exists.

Its existence itself is a proof.

Since God’s existence is perceived by many from time immemorial,

perhaps right form the time man came into existence, (manushya means one who thinks)

the burden of disproving Him is heavy.

Since He can not be disproved ( Godel’s model implies that),

we have to see how He can be proved!

To do this we have to think from a different angle.

To prove anything, there are some basic requirements,

such as perception and cognition.

When can we perceive something?

When it is in the same dimension or frequency level like ours.

If we say that we can not perceive God,

it means that we are not in the same level of frequency of God.

Then what is the level of frequency of God?

To know this, we have to look at the descriptions given about God.

This is known as testimony or Sabda or sruti or pramana texts.

(Knowing the limitations of our intelligence,

Hindu Thought has devised a methodology in the search to know about God.

There are 9 methods, but 6 have been accepted / used

in many a philosophical inquiry of scriptures.

They are

(1) Perception (direct & indirect)or prathyaksha

(2) Inference (anumana)

(3) Analogy or comparison (upamana)

(4) Testimony (sruti texts)

(5) Circumstantial presumption (arthapatti) and

(6) Negative proof of non-cognition or non apprehension (anupalabdhi)

An example for the 6th one – anupalabdhi is the non- apprehension of presence of stars

in the sky in the day time which does not mean that

there are no stars in the sky in the day time.)

To know the nature / frequency level of God,

we have to depend on Testimony - by the Vedic texts.

The texts describe the nature or frequency of

Brahman, the Ultimate God.

“Him who is of sun-like colour beyond darkness “ (Sve Upa- 3-8)

He is beyond darkness.

This means Tamas or Tamasa guna is absent in Him.

“Him who abides beyond Rajas” (Sama veda 17-1-4-2)

This means Rajasa guna is also absent in Him.

“Within the heart, there is a person consisting of mind, immortal and golden”

(Tai Upa 1-6-1)

“ all mortal creatures have come from this self- luminous person” (yajur- 32-2)

“ Like a raiment of golden colour” (Br Upa 4-3-6)

The golden, the self- luminous nature, the immortal one –

all these show that

this is about Sattva guna.

That He is Suddha sattva is also told in Bhagavd Gita.

All that is perfect, immortal, Infinite and True

are about Sattvic nature in full bloom.

If God is all about sattva, what can perceive that form?

Only another sattva can perceive this sattva!

And Intelligence is not sattva.

Intelligence is a faculty – not a guna – attitude.

That is why Intelligence can not perceive God!

But Intelligence in a sattvic mind can experience wonders which are about God.

This is here the Indian scientists scored higher than the western scientists.

This is not to say that western scientists utterly lack sattvic tendencies.

But there are tendencies that are of finite nature

which can not or may not help in perceiving the Absolute Sattvic.

These tendencies are termed as Yoga maya, by Gitacharyan.

“concealed by yoga maya, I am not perceived by all” (7-25 – BG)

But He is born out of his “Atma-maya” (4-6 BG)

The Atma maya reveals Him, but yoga-maya conceals Him.


Maya (as per lexicon of Yaska) means wisdom, knowledge.

He is Knowledge of Gyana (satyam, gyanam, anatham Brahma is the Sruti vachan)

And He can be known by Gyana or Knowledge!

But that Gyana can not be perceived by Intelligence which is a faculty.

So it is not about whether you are intelligent or not.

It is about what ‘knowledge’ you got through that Intelligence.

When intelligence is used to know finite substances,

you may become successful as a scientist.

When that intelligence is used to ‘know’ Infinite Him,

then you get to know Atma- gyana – the knowledge of God.

Why Intelligence is found wanting in knowing God?

It is because it is one of the many things that have sprung matter – prakruthi,

whereas Gyana is about His attitude - the sattva guna.

Though sattva is also one of 3 gunas which have sprung from Prakruthi,

it is the only Guna that God is identified with

or personifies as.

So a person with sattva guna will perceive Him

and will become Him when he reaches the level

of Only Sattva or Suddha sattva.

Now let us look at those things that lack a shred to know about God.

They are (explained in BG 13-5&6)

the 5 elements,

aham kara,


10 indriyas,


5 senses.

Added to these are the rajasic and tamasic iccha (desire)

Dwesha (hatred)

Sukham( pleasure)

Dhukkham (pain)

When these things are there, sattva can not be perceived.

When sattva is not connected to Buddhi and manas,

the Suddha sattwa can not be perceived.

There are only two instances in Ithihasa of two persons

who acquired briefly the ingredients to ‘see’ God

inspite of limitations by prakruthi.

They are Arjuna and Sanjaya

The gift to see the form of God was given to Arjuna by the God Himslelf,

by ‘dadaami divyam chakshu:”

He gave the divine eye to Arjuna because without the divine eye,

no one can see His rupam.

The same divine eye was given to Sanjaya too by Vyasa,

just before the start of the war.

Vyasa initially offered to give this eye to Dhritharashtraa.

But he declined and instead preferred to hear the happenings in the battle field.

Vyasa then granted Sanjaya this divine eye

saying that he would be able see everything,

both hidden and open,

that which happens in the dark and in the light,

that which runs as thoughts in people’s interior and so on.

The description is same as what the Lord gave Arjuna as Divyam chakshu:

Vyasa further qualifies this boon by telling that

Sanjaya alone would emerge out of this war unhurt,

meaning that he would be there at every place in the Battle field,

would follow every asthra shot,

listen to every word spoken,

but yet remain unaffected by it – or come out of all it unscathed.

But sanjaya was lucky in that

he not only saw the happenings in the battle field

and heard the Lord utter his Gita,

but also saw God in His Virat rupa.

Here a question comes what sattva Sanjaya had,

to be enabled to see Him?

What made sanjaya special to receive this gift?

This is the most intriguing part which every saadhaka wishes to know.

But to my present level of understanding,

it seems that a person need not do

great sacrifices, penance or

meditation to become the recipient of this gift.

As Upanishad says, “HE is seen by him whom He chooses.”

He, as an embodiment of sattvam, granted Sanjaya the Divine Vision

(through Vyasa),

because Sanjaya must have been of sattvam in an enhanced level.

But the choice is His

and as per BG it is about how you conduct yourself,

as a doer or an instrument.

Like the butcher from whom a sage learnt Athma gyaana (MB),

Sanjaya too was a selfless karmayogi, with equanimity.

There are two terms expressed in MB at different places.

They are puppets and instruments.

Elsewhere in MB it is said that the jivas are the puppets, controlled by Him.

But in BG. Bahgavan gives another choice, ‘nimiththam’ or instrument.

When one is a puppet, there is absolutely no control over one’s own actions by oneself.

But when one allows oneself to be used as an instrument by the Lord,

He takes charge and the jiva merely enjoys Lord’s actions as His Leela.

There is a qualitative difference in status between these two conditions.

Less awareness perpetuates one into being a puppet.

But awareness makes one to be used by Him, instead of being controlled by Him.

The latter one is what a karma yogi does.

The Lord prescribes this state only, as a way to liberation.

And it is in this way, Sanjaya qualifies for the divyam chakshu:

The awareness about Him and about the way He handles our affairs

can not come without we becoming sattvic.

So my inference is that Intelligence without sattvic nature

can not help one perceive or realize God!

Reference :-

* By William Denton on Godel's Theorm

Any system Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it. ………

Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...

How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.

The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally.


Arun said...

I wish the following be made required reading at college:

I'm a theoretical physicist. I don't know about the high-IQ part. Never took part in a degrading IQ test. But yes, I can tell you this much. About eleven months back, I woke up from what Richard Dawkins terms 'God Delusion'. I use his words to put things in context. I have no connection with him or his ideas, as I haven't seen his book in any manner, nor do I intend to. I consider myself intelligent enough of forming and reforming my own opinions. And yes, there is no going back on this one, since the awakening is for real. The mind has been unrestrained and free, since then. Never before did I feel this sense of elation. Physics problems I have dealt with were easier than this one. Probably why it took me 26 long years to crack this one. May you crack it yourself some day. All the best!


Aishu said...

Godmen in our country claim to have seen god. They are also treated as no less than god by people who worship them or follow them. Hindus especially are desperate to visit such godmen who can alleviate their miseries in life. Fortunately, our country has many gods in human personification.

“whomever He chooses, by him alone He is reached.
To him this Self reveals his own form” (Munda III-2-3)
Does this apply here too? I wonder sometimes as to why doesnt the God show himself to people in other countries.

When God can show himself to Ustad Bismillah Khan, i donot think it is related to IQ or meditation or samadhi or religion. It is just His wish

jayasree said...

//I wonder sometimes as to why doesnt the God show himself to people in other countries.//

It is because they do not know nor think of "God" - the All pervading Brahman, the knowledge of which is available only in India (Vedics/ Hindus). Such a God is Shuddha Sattva and the one who transcends to the level of Shuddha Sattva 'sees' Him. How to reach the level of Shuddha Sattva is also available to those connected to India or Hindu Thought. That is the reason.

irodov707 said...

"I wonder sometimes as to why doesn't the God show himself to people in other countries." This is a false premise. The reasoning that followed, to try and 'understand' this premise is therefore false too.

"Such a God is Shuddha Sattva and the one who transcends to the level of Shuddha Sattva 'sees' Him." Do you know the meaning of any of these words or are you one of those people who parrot things from books and post their views on blogs? Do you have any thoughts of your own?

mosurh said...

Read both links.Sorry to say I was expecting some profundity but a very lame theory calling the older generation deluded.
To believe in Science one does not need to forfeit faith.And I dont think there are any atheists in this world, even self-belief is a faith on unknown. You may not call it God.
If we are such a random occurrence then what makes one believe the "I" is in your control.
And I am sure that you will reach a point in life where you will understand faith and appreciate it.

irodov707 said...

Science is for the reasoning mind. Those who have already landed into a frame of mind without reasoning themselves into it can almost never be reasoned out of it. Agreed it is a theory. But 'Lame' theory? Seriously? Do you know anything at all about evolutionary psychology? Do you know that some of the ideas contained in that article were first propounded by noted evolutionary biologists including Sir Richard Dawkins? May I know how you qualify to call their theory lame?

mosurh said...

What makes you think people who believe in God don't have a reasoning mind?
Maybe they have reasoned that there is something which is beyond reason and cant be quantified or qualified.
It doesn't matter who propounded the theory, I am entitled to my opinion.
Have you read all Vedic/Upanishads wisdom and understood it before questioning my qualification?
Do you just quote what your books tell you or try to form your own opinions.
Irrespective of your beliefs please don't be dogmatic and arrogant about it.Even Einstein is close getting proved wrong by the recent CERN experiment.

irodov707 said...


I've read parts of the Upanishadic literature (Mundaka, Katha). True, I don't remember much now. There was a time when it had a huge influence on me. I have read a few verses from the Rig Veda. I'm no Vedic scholar. I have read Ramakrishna-Vivekananda literature extensively for many years and also the literature of Ramana Maharshi. I have read bits and pieces of Tripura Rahasya. I have read this work called Aparokshanubhuti by Adi Sankara. I have read many books published by Advaita Ashrama. This stuff was staple for about 7 years of my life. I used to apply myself for weeks to understand a stanza or a couplet. I used to believe that my life's aim was only Nirvikalpa Samadhi. I was seriously considering (more than you can imagine) the life of a monk. By that I do NOT mean joining any monastic order. I meant a life by myself without anyone to guide me.

A life in science changed all that.

I don't have beliefs anymore. I'm a non-believer. If you think I believe in Science, then you are mistaken. Science is NOT a dogma to be believed. It is the name given to a method of relentlessly questioning, experimenting and gathering reproducible facts. This definition of the scientific method runs in the face of all belief systems including God. Therefore your statement is fallacious: "Maybe they have reasoned that there is something which is beyond reason". Reason(or Science) does NOT allow for things beyond its own scope. If it does, then that very minute the practitioner is termed unreasonable/unscientific.

If I come across as arrogant it is unintentional. Can you to stick to the topic in question and not get personal?

"Even Einstein is close getting proved wrong by the recent CERN experiment." Firstly, Einstein never said he was right. If you think that's how scientists work then you cannot be farther from the truth. How qualified are you to comment on Einstein's work/ the CERN experiment? Please cite a list of books/articles/papers you may have read on Einstein's work. By the way, have you read the actual paper on the neutrino anomaly? Einstein's special theory of relativity is an approximation that works in a limited setting. If you are under the impression that his theory of relativity is the be all and end all of physics, then you are suffering from the lack of a physics education. There is no way I can convey STR through this blog. I can only exhort you to read his works and pick up standard graduate level textbooks on the subject.

"It doesn't matter who propounded the theory". It does. If the person is of the stature of a Newton you can say with high certainty that his theory may not be completely inaccurate. In this case, Richard Dawkins has a well-established reputation as an evolutionary biologist, a reputation which is gauged by the number of times his works are cited in the scientific world. His contributions have been seminal. I'm not going to use this blog comment to discuss his academic stature. I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

"I am entitled to my opinion." You are. But facts will remain facts irrespective of your opinions. You can choose to opine that an apple will not fall down when under free fall. But facts will run in the face of your opinion.

You have not answered any of my questions by the way.