blind faith

[Guest guest]

Mani writes:

*** I do not believe in ``blind faith'' without the mind in operation. I

*** am not implying that you are not using your mind -- just that there

*** is very often room for logical discussion of such topics

*** as hell, in spite of literal declarations that declare the

*** existence of such worlds.

 

I am not sure that is possible to love God (or for that matter anyone

one dear) in any other way BUT blindly. I am not sure if love

(be it earthly love, or Divine love) can ever be rational, and more

importantly, rationalized.

 

Clearly, you are referring not to Love of God, but your observation

can logically extended to this issue. You seem to argue that

certain issues of our religion can be argued logically, whereas

it is clear to me that certain aspects of our religion HAVE to be

accepted blindly. Where does one draw the line? And more importantly,

who is to draw this line?

 

It is not clear to me that the Alwars were ever "using their minds" in

the sense that you have written. They simply expressed what they felt

and there is no way to "logically" establish their words. Why do we

even believe them to be true? We have never seen them personally.

 

The point I am making is not that one should should not use one's

mind in religion. However, I think it is important to realize that

there is a point when "blind faith" MUST enter ones life. Forget about

religion, even in our personal lives, "blind devotion" is a

necessary and undeniable part of our life. A mother cannot love ones

child in any other way but blindly.

 

If love or religiion arises from the mind, and not from the heart, I

don't see it being strong. Althouhg Desiikar uses logic in connection

with God, I disagree that he uses them to understand him. I believe

he uses them to EXPLAIN him -- not to himself, but to other. That is

his role on this Earth -- namely to spread and teach Sri Vaishnavism.

In this context, it is all the more reason why eminent scholars such

as him are to resorted to in the matters of religion and spiritual

inquiry.

 

You quoted an unnamed source who qustion the usefulness of quoting

poorvacharyas and "forgeting to focus on the essence and latching on to

the outmoded forms." Your point is well taken. However, unlike the

secular sciences, where in principle we could go and do the experiment

ourselves (howevver, I dare say that none of have really seen

sub-atomic particles and we accept its existence mrely by "faith" in

the scientists), there is no way to independent establish the existence of

God, "heaven" and "hell." Who is to tell what is "outmoded" and what

is the "essence." If one truly understood the "essence" of our

religion, we would be humble beggars begging for food

and worshipping God constantlyy (as Sri Vedanta Desikar and his wife

did). None of us can claim that devotion -- how can any of us claim

that we know the "essence?"

 

Certainly, one should lead ones life as one sees fit. One can

interpret scriptures in anyway one wants to make him/her happy. But

I think it is wrong to evaluate a religion, ones way of life, and

ones philosophy in terms of statements such as "blind faith." There

is no religion (anywhere or anytime) that is devoid of blind faith.

 

Sumanth