the quest for religious gods and critical artistic forms are no different

 There are two types of gods that exist in our world: one that demands worship and another that requires understanding. The first god commands faith, belief, and an unquestioning acceptance of divine superiority, accompanied by the rituals and commitments of devotion. The second god invites critical inquiry, analytical scrutiny, and a philosophical examination of its existence. The first is the religious god; the second is the spiritual god. The path to the first is through bhakti (devotion) and surrender, while the path to the second is through intellectual inquiry and philosophical exploration. The difference lies in the practice of ritualistic devotion versus the pursuit of knowledge.

The first option offers surrender and peace, while the second provides understanding and heightened consciousness. Greek gods were of the first kind, while Greek philosophers sought the second. Hindu Mīmāṃsakas represent the first, while Vedantins embody the second. Allah in Hadith reflects the first, while Allah in philosophy means the second. Jesus in the Church aligns with the first, while Jesus in philosophical inquiry belongs to the second. Ritualistic Buddhism (Tibetan kind) aligns with the first, and the Mahayana Middle Path aligns with the second. This duality continues across cultures.

It is ultimately a struggle for power—the politics of education, a battle between practice and theory, the craft of ritual versus the craft of critical thinking. The divide between religion and spirituality isn't just about faith. Throughout history, human civilization has performed this conflict: one group believes that rituals (the craft) leading to faith (the art) are the way forward, while another group believes that knowledge (critical thinking) leading to faith (the art) is the way forward.

Then came a third path, introduced by bhakti saints and Sufi mystics, who sought to break the rigidity of criticality and ritual through love. They claimed one could still achieve the ultimate purpose by transcending the animosity between these two approaches. In contemporary art, what is needed is this third approach—one that can dissolve the dominance of both ritualistic craft and critical methods that currently rule the art world.

(the quest for religious gods and critical artistic forms are no different as yet) 

Sage Nagarjuna, Adi Shankara and Special theory of relativity

 Aadi Shankara ingeniously embraced and transformed the Mahayana Buddhist's Madhyamaka principle of "shunyatha" into the "nirguna parabhrama" of Advitha. In a manner akin to Poincaré and Einstein's roles in the development of the special theory of relativity, Shankara astutely addressed what Nagarjuna had either overlooked or deliberately disregarded—the Brahminical concept of the eternal "soul." Shankara appropriated this concept and asserted in a groundbreaking move that "madhyamaka shunyatha" possesses an inherent eternity within its own argument - the idea of "depended arising" is structurally static.  

Furthermore, Shankara demonstrated that Nagarjuna's notion of dependent arising and Advaita's exploration of the validity and invalidity of cognizance are exclusively applicable within the veridical world or Maya. When taken together, the philosophies of Nagarjuna and Shankara present a formidable challenge to the principles of the special theory of relativity. They assert that dependency (relativity) can only hold true within the Veridical world or Maya and cannot manifest as a causal or consequential factor in the absolute universe.

It is intriguing to note that concepts settled in philosophy more than 13 centuries ago continue to resonate within the realm of physics today.