do u mean to say if faith is the foremost and if that is there, it doesn matter what you are chanting?
in that case cant just faith be enuf, why do u need a chant at all?
correct me if i am wrong.
Printable View
Pardon my ignorance. To any Buddhists or anyone who has an understanding about this religion - From my gathering the most common definition of religion is to believe in the supernatural and in Buddhism, the idea of God is non existent. However, it is mentioned Buddhists or any one for that matter can reach enlightenment via deep ascetic penchants by cutting off all materialistic desires. Can't this divine power enabling us to reach enlightenment be considered as God. Hence, can it be questioned that the idea of God in Buddhism is that "God is within each of us".
Coming back to Anbu sir's post
Just want to iterate what Paramashivan said - When we're children, we ideally think that God or Creator is beyond our body... e.g. During Ramayan it is known that Lord Rama worshiped Lord Shiva as well performing aartis for navaratri and in turn Lord Hanuman (Incarnation of Rudra) worshiped Lord Rama. So we see Gods worshiping gods in Hinduism.Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_kathir
My question - Hindu's suggest that Buddha is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, but Buddhists don't really abide by this and coming to the notion that as kids we see God (creator being a better word) beyond our body then surely Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) must have some where down the line considered God being beyond his body?
Again pardon my ignorance and hope I made sense. Sorry if I offended anyones sentiments.
Since this question has little meaning beyond religion, I am going to assume the tenets of Hinduism before answering the question.
Every individual when he or she prays asks essentially for removal of some situation that causes suffering and sustenance of comfortable/happy situations. All prayer is for these two only. Faith means having firm belief that God is perfectly capable of helping us move through our difficult situations and restoring/sustaining the happy situations in our lives. Without this firm belief, our prayers will only be a lie, and therefore will not bear fruit.
Now to the issue of the activity itself, which involves doing something or the other to demonstrate this faith (it might be chanting, or going to temple, or lighting a lamp.. anything at all). This activity is required to ensure the commitment of the individual to his faith. "Faith" by itself has no meaning to it if it does not drive activity. Such a faith is dormant and amounts to nothing, for in the world, it is only the activities that matter.
Furthermore, in the initial stages, such faith-related activity should not be yet another worldly activity, which involves our daily routine of acquiring survival and comforts. This is important because our minds are already trained to think only of our worldly concerns and worries during these activities, and it will be near impossible to use these activities as "prayer". Thus, a dedicated non-worldly activity is required to help concentrate the mind on the divine, not distracting it with the concerns of the world.
Such activity is also necessary because the individual often loses sight of the fact that he or she only has the ability to do actions and does not have the capability of controlling which reactions have to come at what times, and with what intensity. The principle of Karma, which merely says that actions are rewarded justly, does not offer us any information about the time delays or the intensities with which the rewards come. Conjoining faith with a particular activity makes it a ritual, and in effect is also supposed to remind the individual that there are forces beyond his or her control, and prepare him psychologically to handle whatever experiences may turn up at his doorstep as a just result of his prior actions (known or unknown).
As to the particulars of the ritual itself, why one has to do it in one way or another, the only (secular) answer that comes to my mind is that there is a certain inherent potency it carries because it has been reinforced through generations of practice by the elders in the particular tradition, or other people close to the individual whose opinions and actions he or she might have come to respect. All these increase the faith that one has on the ritual, and enables it to take effect more powerfully within the mind of the individual.
Love and Light.
Buddhists do believe in Divinity and supernatural entities. They do have temples. Lets seek to understand one system from the basics at first. A jack of all trades is all trades is a master of none. With respect to religions and philosophies, its even worse; such a person will be a really confused person.
Love and Light.
Sunil,
Our thoughts and emotions are just a psychological reality. The
psychological reality has nothing to do with the existential reality.
-deleted-
Paramashivan,
What you say is right, but there is certainly nothing *wrong* in seeking God through the senses. Yes, most of us are in this stage only. In whatever stage we are in, there is always the opportunity to uphold Dharma in one's life and do so in the service of the Lord. The forms of the Lord that are seen all over the world are all nothing less *real* than human beings, because even by your own logic, the word "human being", "body", "mind" all these are *concepts in the mind* only. There is no source of knowledge as to why these concepts should be less or more real than the concept of God as a being with name(s) and form(s).
As long as there is the notion of attachment to the body, i.e., as long as we think we are the body-mind complex, or that we *have* a body-mind complex that is *ours*, it is best to seek the Lord through actions through the body, through words, and through the mind. It is certainly not wise to give up this pursuit saying that "God cannot be understood through physical organs", fact though it may be. The lives of so many saints of this world are testaments to this.
Love and Light.
Senses can only perceive what is physical, since we all agree that the "Omnipotent" is not physical, then how? You see our thoughts/behaviours/attitude/emotions are nothing but an imitation from the environment / culture we are born in, and it varies from individual to individuals, hence there can never be a "general concept". Devotion is like any other human emotions, and it is never constant, it is just one of those feelings generated from your Adrenalin glands. :)
Bhakthi is not "just another emotion" which is generated from your adrenalin glands. This is not acceptable in the Hindu model. If you are talking science, all your "seek the Creator within" is also just another pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo which apparently sounds more interesting and philosophical. From a point of view of science, there is no such thing as a "creator", you are nothing but a mass of atoms which interact in a particular way so as to create the "I". Your "seeking" is also some neurons in the brain firing here and there. All we have is then some inert matter which came out of a big bang, and which by chance conjoined to produce this thing we call "life" with no known purpose. Certainly this viewpoint is not shared in Hinduism.
In Hinduism, God, in the most true meaning of the word, is indeed not perceptible to the senses. But this does not mean Bhakthi towards an external form is a waste. The Lord who is found in the temple is 100% real, as real as any other being in this universe. It is not for nothing that the greatest saints of India spent their time and energy worshiping the Lord in the way they saw/knew him, as Krishna, as Rama, as Shiva, as Murugan, as Abirami, as Saraswati, as Meenakshi, etc.
To say that all their efforts were useless is incorrect. You say Bhakthi is some emotion produced by adrenalin glands. Yet, why should it be more in some people and less in others? There is no real answer to this question if you consider only science (you only get infinite regress). According to Hinduism, the mind is prior to the human body. Though there is no denial of a mind-body connection, it is the particular characters or inherent impressions in the mind of the individual Jiva (which he accumulates through his actions over several lifetimes) that the particular body with its particular characteristics is available to him in this lifetime. So Bhakthi is not just some emotion "caused" by some physical activity. The physical organs which are involved in maintaining Bhakthi are merely intermediary causes for it. The same holds for any other emotions and thoughts. They are all the expressions of the characteristics accumulated by the Jiva over several lifetimes.
All of the different modes of Bhakthi present in Hinduism are relevant and necessary in any time and age. But the individual has to observe his own nature and tune himself to the particular mode of Bhakthi that is best for him. It is definitely impossible to discard any of the modes of worship and still call the system as Sanatana Dharma or the way of Eternal and Universal Dharma. In fact, it is not exactly correct to say "God is not physical". God is indeed *also* physical. But He is not *just* physical.
Love and Light.
Kathir
I did not say Bakthi was a bad thing at all, all I said was in order for one to reach "Ultimate" you need a combination of bakthi(devotion) , Gnana (intellect) Kriya(Life energies) and Karma (actions) . By one of these accept alone it is virtually impossible to reach the Ultimate, (IMHO). Imagine all these were four wheels of a car, in order to reach the destination, you will need all these 4 wheels to work simultaneously right? :)
If one decides to go in a different direction, will you reach your destination? No right? This is what I meant :)
Frankly, I think you need much more groundwork to establish what you are saying, i.e., "a combination of bhakthi, jnana, kriya, karma". It is like saying "to succeed in life, one needs a combination of skill, intelligence, action, passion for life, etc." It is a very loose statement, so I cannot reject it nor can I accept it as a perfect statement, because it will not stand its ground when examined in the light of the scriptures. Loose statements like these are dangerous in philosophy, and are practically not very useful in spirituality either, for it leaves the individual in a dilemma as to what and how to pursue these, and moreover what exactly are we hoping to attain by their pursuit.
The Hindu system, according to the scriptures, is simple and uncomplicated. There are two ways only, the way of Action (Karma Yoga) and the way of Self-Knowledge (Jnana Yoga). For a Jiva, spirituality begins with Karma Yoga, which leads to Jnana Yoga, which finally leads to Jnana or Self-Knowledge, which confers liberation. A *mixing* of the paths is actually not possible at all. Bhakthi is needed in each of these paths, but according to the mindset of the individual it will mean different things at different points in his spiritual evolution. This succession of paths and the reaching of the ultimate goal takes several lifetimes.
Anyway, my point was that Bhakthi towards a personal god (God as an external compassionate entity who is responsible for the cycle of Creation, and who justly delivers experiences to the Jivas according to their Karma) is highly recommended in Hinduism. Whether it is "enough" for liberation or not, that question we can bother about later.
Love and Light.
My opinion was not based on any scriptures, just a general opinion by me. My views are not "entirely" based in Hinduism. Besides, if one follows our scriptures and Vedas, it will be impossible as we have infinite no of scriptures/Vedas!
Coming to the devotion aspect.....
Why is a Deity/Object/Picture required to invoke bhakthi? Isn't that "Bakthi" happening within you? I guess you need an external stimulant to invoke such feelings :)
It is easiest to love a person who is near and dear to you, who cares for you, who provides for you, who comforts you in times of difficulty, is it not? The Lord is such a person. He or she is invoked in the idol or picture and that is loved. When our loved ones die, don't we keep pictures of them in our homes and reminisce our good times with them? Is it not easier to do it that way, rather than throw away all external objects that remind us of them and simply say that "That remembrance is happening within you, so why do you need these objects?".
Love and Light.
Yes, but these feeling/thoughts are happening within you not with the person whom you think loves/cares for you. All I am saying is such feelings are invoked by external stimulant, but these feelings you get is based within you, it is not out side but inside. So to conclude it, the Cosmic energy/Creator/GOD is within you not outside as per hallucination created by your mind based on the info you gathered from your sensory organs + imagination of your mind :)
Everything that we know or understand is based on info gathered from senses and the thoughts of our mind. So this way of coming to the conclusion that "god is within us" is also within the mind. How are we to believe it?
The issue here is that most people are unable to view themselves as the source of all emotional support. Why should they not lean on a perfect and compassionate and all powerful entity? This is much better than leaning on the worldly objects or people for support. The existence of this entity is known through faith in scripture, in the elders in the family, and in all the masters and saints who have witnessed this deity. Why should one not trust these?
Love and Light.
The vedas have been mentioned, but is Lord Siva mentioned in the Vedas? I don't mean as 'Rudra', I mean as Lord Siva/Shiva/Sivan etc.
What about other sources, such as the Agamas/Agamams, Tirumantiram, etc?
I know Tirumantiram is available in English at least.
There is a massive difference between religion and faith.
Religion makes you do, Faith makes you want to.
Religion is man made, Faith is spiritual.
Religion you are taught, Faith you are born with.
Religion is a standard for you to follow, Faith is something you feel.
Religions were started, Faith is infinite.
Religion kills, Faith heals.
God has no religion as long as we have faith.
Hinduism is a matter of faith for me, not a religion, it is not an ism. I believe it because I feel it not because I am told to.
Many people that I have spoken to of other faiths feel the same way, There is only One God after all.
Anyone can have any beliefs they want to, including you, Sunilji. Truth, unfortunately, is never easily seen, simple though it might be. It requires a tremendous exercise of intellect, perhaps requiring the whole of our lifetime. If we are interested in Truth, even in a basis sense, the very least we can do is to have the humility to accept that we may be wrong (completely and absolutely), that we are confused, and we indeed do need guidance from those that have already gone along the path.
Love and Light.
Avaru eppO irunthu Ji aanar ? :lol:
Very true!
with due respect to these "Mahans" , I disgaree with this, spiritual awakening needs happen from where you are at the moment, I feel it is lost cause, if we try to start from where the period where such mahans existed, we will be lost for ever, one should start from wher he is now :)
Hehe.. avarOda pEru "ji" pOdrathukku vasadiyaa irukku.
[/QUOTE]Quote:
with due respect to these "Mahans" , I disgaree with this, spiritual awakening needs happen from where you are at the moment, I feel it is lost cause, if we try to start from where the period where such mahans existed, we will be lost for ever, one should start from wher he is now :)
I was talking about "Truth" (as in that which cannot be contradicted at any time) and not spiritual awakening. Spiritual awakening is not any discrete event, unless you further supply it with a very precise definition. A person who tries to live a moral and ethical and compassionate life, without bothering about religion, is also a spiritual person. As for the "Mahaans", the characteristics of such people are mentioned in the scriptures and without doubt such people always exist. One merely has to keep the flame of spiritual life alive by ones thoughts words and deeds. Sooner or later one will find oneself led to them. "Truth" is to be found only from such persons.
Love and Light.
When did I ever mention 'priests' ? Priesthood is an occupation, like any other occupation. There is no established correlation between priesthood and spirituality. I was only talking about those who who have studied under a teacher themselves, who have learnt the real nature of their own self, and are therefore free from anger, fear, jealousy, hatred, attachment, etc. It is not necessary that priests be such people or that people be such priests.
Both the seeker and the guider find each other, really. The seeker has to have the thirst, though. By the continual performance of one's duty selflessly, by living a prayerful, ethical and moral life, by mentally renouncing the desire for worldly pleasures, by yearning to be free from sorrow once and for all, by all these the seeker comes into contact with a teacher, who then quenches all the seeker's desires and frees him from his sorrow once and for all by his teaching.
Correct!
Very well said, the initial thirst for spirituality must come from deep within, the pain of ignorance should tear one apart, this will lead you to seek the truth, and in this journey you would find the guru to lead you in the correct path! But it is also possible to attain spirituality without a guru.
You didn't... I wasn't sure what you meant by, "those that have already gone along the path" hence I wanted to clarify my assumption.
:thumbsup: but I strongly think no one is free from anger, fear, jealousy, hatred, attachment, etc. I've also read that there is no one who is equally wealthy, powerful, famous, beautiful, learned and scholarly yet renounces order of life unattached to material possessions as someone who has all these six qualities is understood to be the supreme personality of godhead.
I feel that material possessions is a blanket term i.e. if you want to want to devote your life to god then do you seriously have to give up material possessions. I believe when "Mahans" say that one should give up material possessions, they are actually referring to greed.
One can think he is ethical and moral in every way possible but it's always external influences that shape us a people, hence if we want to attain "Moksha" it's not in our hands even if we choose a simple and ascetic lifestyle. A person who makes himself oblivious to the world and is immersed completely in "jaap" 24/7 either is a reformed character or sociopath. If god showers wealth, power, fame on an individual then he/she should acknowledge it instead of giving it up! Is it a test from god to see how that individual will respond i.e. stay humble or become a show off either way god is always testing each and everyone of us but before they prove anything to god they need to first prove to themselves who they actually are. Hence some people might not even need guidance :)
I'm not denying it's truth but I personally don't comprehend it being possible.
Free from anger etc. does not necessarily mean anger etc. will not be displayed. What it means is that the person is in control of his emotions and not otherwise. Since this is a constitution of such a person's mind, it cannot be brushed off as if they are impossible, neither can it be accepted if it be told simply in words. That such and such person is free from all these confusions is to be found by patience and observation of the person. One hint to find such a person is that he or she would seem peaceful most of the time, but at the same time never claim anything special or great to himself. In fact, mostly the work of a teacher is to simply point out that the seeker is himself the greatest thing in the world. Such a person would never attribute any greatness to himself. Even if he or she did on rare occasions, it would merely be a device to teach something.
I don't understand what you are saying, except for the fact that you have given the possessions of Bhagavan, which are known as the "Bhaga"s in sanskrit. They include Jnaanam, Yashas, Sri, Aishwarya, Virya, Vairagyam. Obviously Bhagavan is considered to be the repository of all these possessions. What is this "no one who is equally wealthy.. yet renounces"? Didn't make sense.Quote:
I've also read that there is no one who is equally wealthy, powerful, famous, beautiful, learned and scholarly yet renounces order of life unattached to material possessions as someone who has all these six qualities is understood to be the supreme personality of godhead.
Please reread what I said - " by mentally renouncing the desire for worldly pleasures" . This is 100% necessary if one wants to know God, or be free from sorrow and its causes once and for all. Physical renunciation, physically separating oneself from material possessions is considered to be very important, nevertheless. But its not like a "rule" if one wants to know God. It is merely meant to provide a convenient setting in which one can spend time exclusively for study of the scriptures in order to know and be established in that by which all sorrow comes to an end. The value one attaches to all worldly attachments, relations, and possessions *have* to be given up to know God. One cannot be 100% sure if one has given up this (emotional) value until one loses the things he possesses. Therefore physical renunciation is a great aid in this matter.Quote:
I feel that material possessions is a blanket term i.e. if you want to want to devote your life to god then do you seriously have to give up material possessions. I believe when "Mahans" say that one should give up material possessions, they are actually referring to greed.
Of course, this is only the last leg of the journey, it is meant only for those who have the thirst to know God. There are several other spiritual disciplines prescribed for those who still have desires and attachments in the world. Depending on their mental state they can make use of these disciplines.
If you don't want an ascetic lifestyle, don't choose it. As I said, it is only for those who want God exclusively that the ascetic lifestyle is preferable. Not for those who have desires to achieve something in the world, to gain something, to love someone or be loved by someone, to have different kinds of experiences in the world, etc. It is not that all these desires are wrong, certainly one may have them. But having them in excess, having them at the cost of ethics and morals (i.e. adharma) is detrimental to a peaceful life. Therefore there are several disciplines which are prescribed by religion(s). One can make use of these disciplines to lead a (relatively) peaceful life, even without attempting to be an ascetic. But to root out the cause of sorrow, an ascetic life is extremely helpful.Quote:
One can think he is ethical and moral in every way possible but it's always external influences that shape us a people, hence if we want to attain "Moksha" it's not in our hands even if we choose a simple and ascetic lifestyle.
As for "Moksha being not in our hands", you couldn't be more wrong. Moksha is completely in our hands. It depends purely on our mental capabilities like renunciation and desire to be free. This should never be doubted by any spiritual seeker.
Its not jaap, but japa or jap or japam, I guess. Anyway, the statement is purely your opinion and viewpoint of what a Sanyaasi's life should be. It does not reflect the opinion of the scripture, nor is this the only way Sanyaasa is practised. But I guess what you mean is that a Sanyaasi's life is dedicated to the pursuit of the divine and the divine only. So much is indeed true.Quote:
A person who makes himself oblivious to the world and is immersed completely in "jaap" 24/7 either is a reformed character or sociopath.
God has no necessity of our prayers, our devotion, our renunciation, or our moral life. You cannot dictate what other people should or should not do. The mind of a renunciate is very different from our minds (in general). Our minds are generally accustomed to hold on to the objects of the world to derive our pleasures, whether it be people, or objects, or circumstances. The renunciate's mind rejoices in himself/God alone. It is not that he "hates" the world. No. He is tired of holding on to temporal things and he deeply desires something permanent. This permanency he finds in his own Self, if not, then in God. So he wanders about (or keeps himself in one place) with this understanding all the time. Since he has no need for wealth or power or fame, he gives it to those people who need them. God plays no role in this matter. It is purely the mind of the worldly people by which they depend on temporal things for their happiness, and thereby they get misled. Similarly it is purely the mind of the renunciate by which he learns to depend on God or his own Self, and thereby he takes the correct approach towards being content.Quote:
If god showers wealth, power, fame on an individual then he/she should acknowledge it instead of giving it up!
I didn't get what your point is here at all. As for "proving anything to God", God does not need any proof of our divinity. It is we who miss it. Therefore it is we ourselves who have to remember it. The result of this remembrance is the destruction of the cause of sorrow once and for all.Quote:
Is it a test from god to see how that individual will respond i.e. stay humble or become a show off either way god is always testing each and everyone of us but before they prove anything to god they need to first prove to themselves who they actually are. Hence some people might not even need guidance :)
Love and Light.
I didn't believe that there is such a thing called a zero-mass particle either. I couldn't comprehend that it was possible. Then people taught me about the photon. After much thought and study, I understood what it meant.
Well, kind of. But I don't doubt that there is such a thing called a zero-mass particle anymore.
Love and Light,
Prasad.
The famous saint Sri Ramakrishna used to say that even to become a good thief, one needs to have an excellent thief as a teacher. Then what to say of knowing God, who is most difficult to know ? Also, all the scriptures speak of getting this knowledge from an accomplished teacher only. Never do they mention any technique to attain God without a teacher.
Of course, the decision is left to the individual.
Love and Light.
Who said that ?? You don’t have to give up any material objects to attain the knowledge of your self, you can use materials for your day to day life, but don’t become emotionally attach to it.
Eg. You use a car to go to work, do shopping etc, but if some thing happens to your car (Lost/stolen/Damaged) you should not show any emotions, if there is no emotion towards any object, then there is no attachment. :)
I was merely paraphrasing but I should have given the exact quote -
It's always a pleasure to read your comments, sir and I thoroughly enjoyed it! :clap: Though I still have a tiny nitpick as I'm still not convinced by "Moksha" being a result of our mental capabilities. i.e. if god created us then did he give us personality or did we develop that ourselves? Does this define the line between humans and the supernatural?Quote:
So
from practical experience we can observe that one is attractive due to
(1) wealth, (2) power, (3) fame, (4) beauty, (5) wisdom and (6)
renunciation. One who is in possession of all six of these opulences at
the same time, who possesses them to an unlimited degree, is understood
to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. These opulences of the
Godhead are delineated by Paräçara Muni, a great Vedic authority.
We have seen many rich persons, many powerful persons, many famous
persons, many beautiful persons, many learned and scholarly persons,
and persons in the renounced order of life unattached to material
possessions. But we have never seen any one person who is unlimitedly
and simultaneously wealthy, powerful, famous, beautiful, wise and
unattached, like "God", in the history of humanity.
BTW Jaap is a Punjabi variant of the words you've listed.
Pardon me :ashamed:Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_kathir
That's what I meant but my lack of vocabulary let my expression down.Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_kathir
This is indeed true as a comparison between the capabilities of the Lord and the capabilities of individuals.
I didn't say Moksha is a 'result' of our mental capabilities. I said it is in our own hands. A popular analogy for this is that the Lord's grace is like the ever present wind and the individual is like a boat on the sea. If the individual by his effort (i.e renunciation and desire to know god) raises the mast, then the wind takes care of everything that is required to reach the destination. There is no "effort" put forth by the wind to do this. The effort is all by the boatman, who understands the point of being in a boat, how it works, what is detrimental to reaching the goal and what is useful, and has the courage enough to raise the mast. All these are in the hands of the boatman only, not the wind. In the same way Moksha is completely dependent on the individual's desire and mental qualifications. The rest is God's grace, which is ever-present, about which we need only to be thankful for but not bother about.Quote:
I'm still not convinced by "Moksha" being a result of our mental capabilities. i.e.
There are loaded words here - like "God" , "Creation", etc., that it is slightly difficult to answer the questions before defining them properly (I generally use them only from a utility point of view). But the point is not difficult to make. The mental and physical characteristics possessed by an individual is because of a portion of aggregate of actions done in the past (lives). This is known as Praarabhda Karma. 'God' as such is merely a facilitator, an entity which lends existence to the individual and all the possible shades that he can take. In the particularity of the shades, God plays no part, and it is purely the individuals free will which decides. The same law governs all beings, including plants, animals, human beings, and supernaturals.Quote:
if god created us then did he give us personality or did we develop that ourselves? Does this define the line between humans and the supernatural?
All this can be accepted or rejected as blind belief. From another perspective, these questions don't matter at all. We find ourselves right now with so many issues and problems in life. We find ourselves incapable to handle many of them, afraid, incomplete, insecure and bound. Is there any solution at all? How does it matter *how* we came about to this issue? The house is burning. Do we see it? If we see it, we take action to protect it. We don't stop to ask how it started burning in the first place. That we can bother after we have extinguished the fire. Similarly these questions on "how" and "why" will subside after our issues (of being insecure, afraid, self-loathing, guilt, hurt, sorrow) are dealt with. And to deal with them, to cure them, such that they don't reappear again, is called finding God.
I didn't know that, pardon me.Quote:
BTW Jaap is a Punjabi variant of the words you've listed.
Love and Light.
When the very source of creation is within you, all the solutions are within you.but you spend your entire life seeking the creator outside by various methods / Idiologies known as Religion. This is why you are not getting any where! The source of creation is within you, if you remove the curtains of "Maya" , you would find the creator within you!
What is this 'you'? What is the meaning of 'within'? What is Maya? How do you say there is a creator?
What is 'religion' and how do you ascertain that it is useless?
Love and Light.
P.S : Asking these questions out of curiosity and out of an interest in clarity.