Some religions need updating to fit the times and societies today.
Aum Bhur Bhuva Svah
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Naha Prachodayat”
meaning – we meditate on the glory of that being who has produced this universe; may he enlighten our minds.
The first evidence we get for this antiquity is in the Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas which record the ancient mnemonics in Sanskrit.
Buddhism has a similar problem. Neither the Buddha nor his disciples wrote down any of what he said. After his death, the five hundred most committed monks decided to sit in meditation until they achieved enlightenment and then held a conference to discuss, come to agreement and write down the teachings in Pali, a language closely related to Sanskrit. In Buddhism, the only way that one can prove the teachings is by meditating and discovering for oneself through direct experience. Most Buddhists teachings, especially on psychology, are identical to Hindu. The primary difference is that Hinduism asserts the All One, while Buddhism asserts that there is No Self. Those who have allegedly attained enlightenment report that, experiencially, these two are one in the same. For most westerners, this is mysterious and illogical, but for experienced meditators it tends to make perfect sense.
So the question arises, when we check the authenticity of a religion, do we rely on external evidence? Or is it sufficient to go within and consult with direct awareness and observation?
The question about religion might not be whether or not it is factually true, but whether it has truths that are valid and beneficial for guiding people to behave more ethically and hence reduce the degree and quantity of suffering that can arise for individuals and in society.
Further, I believe we should be thinking about our role on the planet and in its ecology, the balance and health of all life, not just humanity.
In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1
What does the evidence reveal?]