Agnostic.

[Guest guest]

I saw an item on how "agnostics" are treated in our philosophy. I just

looked at Webster's to find the definition of the term "agnostic". The

definition says that "an agnostic is one who holds that human knowledge

is limited to experience, one who denies or doubts the possibility of

ultimate knowledge in some area of study". First, I would like to

ensure that this is the spirit in which the person who raised this

question meant it. I also would like to know what the equivalent term

in samskRt is for the English word "agnostic". Is it referring to

someone who questions the existence of God, one who has already

resolved in his/her mind that God does not exist, one who thinks God's

existence cannot be proved, one who holds that God to someone can only

be as much as he/she is able to experience for himself/herself, God

cannot be defined in absolute terms, something different from all of

the above, something that is a combination of all of the above, etc.

It is my understanding that in our tradition questioning is encouraged,

blind acceptance is discouraged, BhagavAn is beyond our descritpion

through logical analysis and reasoning, He can only be experienced by

each individual who sincerley seeks Him and cannot be 'revealed'to

someone who is not sincere in seeking, etc. Another very interesting

topic on which I look forward to learning from this list.

 

-dAsan kRshNamAcAryan

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

At 04:39 PM 7/22/99 -0400, Narasimhan Krishnamachari wrote:

>I saw an item on how "agnostics" are treated in our philosophy. I just

>looked at Webster's to find the definition of the term "agnostic". The

>definition says that "an agnostic is one who holds that human knowledge

>is limited to experience, one who denies or doubts the possibility of

>ultimate knowledge in some area of study". First, I would like to

>ensure that this is the spirit in which the person who raised this

>question meant it.

 

I wasn't looking at such a dictionary meaning. It was more of the most

commonly used meaning of "indifference". To quote Bharathidasan,

"uNdenbaar palar, illaiyenbaar silar

enakkillai kadavuL kavalai"

 

Basically, it is impossible for me reconcile the fact that a religion

or set of "truths" propounded in one small corner of the world can

be universal truth. There are plenty of honest, god-fearing or otherwise

individuals with all the good qualities mentioned in most sastras

found in all sorts of places. It seems to me funny that they are

somehow condemned to misery.

 

Further, the early Indian acharyas were not proselytising (sorry for

using this specific word, but I wouldn't find anything close enough,

non-derogatory) beyond the connected land mass and there are illogical

quotes abound on crossing the sea in our literature.

 

Much of the religion we are talking about have come by practice, with

our families passing on the collective knowledge. It is like passing

on family wealth which makes one new born kid rich while born and

another a pauper. While this lack of material wealth may be assigned

to fate and karma in the past life, continuing to assign the lack of

achieving a "path of mokhsha" to birth and fate seems to be a bit cruel

and Ramanuja has argued against this as well. [not being knowedgeable

enough, I can't post any quotes but I have certainly seen it in

Patricia Mumme's book]

 

Somehow, against a global society that we come across these days

more often, all the religions seem to lack something or the other.

>It is my understanding that in our tradition questioning is encouraged,

>blind acceptance is discouraged, BhagavAn is beyond our descritpion

>through logical analysis and reasoning, He can only be experienced by

>each individual who sincerley seeks Him and cannot be 'revealed'to

>someone who is not sincere in seeking, etc.

 

yes, but you are also told that you need a teacher to initiate you

in to how to 'seek', and who to 'seek'. It is also unclear whether

it is possible at all for someone to go after this truth without a

"valid" teacher (not out of ego, but out of mere lack of right teachers

around. Say I was born in Burkina Faso in the pre-communication-

revolution era!) though there are certainly few examples mentioned

in various sastras about such people who attained self-realisation

all by themselves.

 

--badri

[Guest guest]

Badri wrote:

> There are plenty of honest, god-fearing or otherwise

> individuals with all the good qualities mentioned in most sastras

> found in all sorts of places. It seems to me funny that they are

> somehow condemned to misery.

 

Badri,

 

I don't think the Vedantic systems make such "condemnations", as

you put it, unless you equate the very existence in samsAra with

misery. The idea behind karma dictates that one sows as one

reaps, and that one does not get what one does not wish for.

This is known as 'tat kratu nyAya'. Based on this principle, a

honest, moral non-believer or doubter will in all probability

return to samsAra in some form or another, probably in better shape

than he or she was in the previous life. Since the non-believer

does not ask or perhaps even desire anything spiritual, nothing

greater is granted.

 

This does not seem like a condemnation to me.

> Basically, it is impossible for me reconcile the fact that a religion

> or set of "truths" propounded in one small corner of the world can

> be universal truth.

 

Don't you mean that such a set of truths cannot be the "exclusive"

truth? With this qualification, I agree with you. But would you not

say that it is possible for some set of truths be indicative of

universal truth? I think we can predicate at least this much to

our tradition. On the other hand, in these modern times, I do think

that it displays a certain degree of arrogance to claim that "unless one

is a follower of XYZ acharya/tradition one cannot be liberated."

 

I do know that many eminent thinkers and teachers of Sri Vaishnavism

caution their followers not to judge others' worship. How do we

know how God will reveal himself to a villager on a South Pacific island?

Who is to say that such worship is lesser or greater than ours? All we

can say is that we have a tradition that we are carrying on, and that

as far as we are concerned this seems the best and is most satisfying,

both intellectually and emotionally.

 

rAmAnuja dAsan

Mani