Knowledge, faith, and belief

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thanks to Ramji for keeping these issues alive! As I pursued them

further in the writings of Aldous Huxley [The Perennial Philosophy, ch. on

Faith] and Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan [The Brahma Sutra, The Philosophy of

Spiritual Life, Introduction and Commentary on the texts], I realised their

value even more (at least for me personally). If the moderators & members

feel so inclined, I shall post excerpts from these.

 

To set the ball rolling, here is a statement from S.R.'s commentary: "

The knowledge of Brahman is not a matter of faith but the result of enquiry.

"

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Sunder Hattangadi wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Thanks to Ramji for keeping these issues alive! As I pursued them

> further in the writings of Aldous Huxley [The Perennial Philosophy, ch. on

> Faith] and Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan [The Brahma Sutra, The Philosophy of

> Spiritual Life, Introduction and Commentary on the texts], I realised their

> value even more (at least for me personally). If the moderators & members

> feel so inclined, I shall post excerpts from these.

>

> To set the ball rolling, here is a statement from S.R.'s commentary: "

> The knowledge of Brahman is not a matter of faith but the result of enquiry.

> "

>

>

> Regards,

>

> s.

>

 

 

namaste.

 

Yes. Personally, I would be quite interested in seeing these excerpts

from the various writings.

 

Strictly, should not the title of this thread be "jnAnam, shraddha,

and vishwAsam" rather than "knowledge, faith and belief"? The meaning

coming out is quite different as conveyed by the sanskrit and the

english words. If we use the sanskrit words for S.R. (Radhakrishnan's)

commentary, it would read "The jnAnam (of brahman) is not a matter of

shraddha..." which is not correct and is certainly debatable and which

I am sure Radhakrishnan does not want to convey. I think Radhakrishnan

meant in that sentence the word faith to mean blind faith without any

reason and, as shri Sunder very well knows, that is not what the word

shraddha conveys.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The choice of the title of the thread was only based on the

'tradition'![after I searched the archives]. My purpose and hope is that the

winds of debate will drive away the clouds of ignorance that hide the sun of

knowledge from my view.

 

Here is the 1st installment of the excerpts:

 

The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.

Harper & Row; 1945. Chapter XVIII : Faith

" The word 'faith' has a variety of meanings, which it is important to

distinguish.

In some contexts it is used as a synonym for 'trust', as when we say that we

have faith in Dr. X's diagnostic skill or in lawyer Y's integrity.

Analogous to this is our 'faith' in authority--the belief that what certain

persons say about certain subjects is likely, because of their special

qualifications, to be true.

On other occasions 'faith' stands for belief in propositions which we have

not had occasion to verify for ourselves, but which we know that we could

verify if we had the inclination, the opportunity and the necessary

capacities.

In this sense of the word we have 'faith', even though we may never have

been to Australia, that there is such a creature as a duck-billed platypus;

we have 'faith' in the atomic theory, even though we may never have

performed the experiments on which that theory rests, and be incapable of

understanding the mathematicas by which it is supported.

And finally there is the 'faith', which is a belief in propositions which we

know we cannot verify, even if we should desire to do so--propositions such

as those of the Athanasian Creed or those which constitute the doctrine of

the Immaculate Conception. This kind of 'faith' is defined by the

Scholastics as an act of the intellect moved to assent by the will."

........

..............[ to be cotd.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Knowledge, faith, and belief

>Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:23:52 -0230 (NDT)

>

>

>> >

>

>

>namaste.

>

>Yes. Personally, I would be quite interested in seeing these excerpts

>from the various writings.

>

>Strictly, should not the title of this thread be "jnAnam, shraddha,

>and vishwAsam" rather than "knowledge, faith and belief"? The meaning

>coming out is quite different as conveyed by the sanskrit and the

>english words. If we use the sanskrit words for S.R. (Radhakrishnan's)

>commentary, it would read "The jnAnam (of brahman) is not a matter of

>shraddha..." which is not correct and is certainly debatable and which

>I am sure Radhakrishnan does not want to convey. I think Radhakrishnan

>meant in that sentence the word faith to mean blind faith without any

>reason and, as shri Sunder very well knows, that is not what the word

>shraddha conveys.

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

>

>

>

>

>

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

#2

 

The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.

Harper & Row; 1945. Chapter XVIII : Faith [cotd.

 

"Faith in the first three senses of the word plays a very important part,

not only in the

activities of everyday life, but even in those of pure and applied science.

Credo ut intelligam--and also, we should add, ut agaim and ut vivam.

Faith is a precondition of all systematic knowing, all purposive doing and

all decent living.

Societies are held together, not primarily by the fear of the many for the

coercive power of the few, but by a widespread faith in the other fellow's

decency.

Such a faith tends to create its own object, while the widespread mutual

mistrust, due, for example, to war or domestic dissension, creates the

object of mistrust.

Passing now from the moral to the intellectual sphere, we find faith lying

at the root of all organised thinking.

Science and technology could not exist unless we had faith in the

reliability of the universe--unless, in Clerk Maxwell's words, we implicitly

believed that the book of Nature is really a book and not a magazine, a

coherent work of art and not a hodge-podge of mutuaaly irrelevant snippets.

To this general faith in the reasonableness and trustworthiness of the world

the searcher after truth must add two kinds of special faith--faith in the

authority of qualified experts, sufficient to permit him to take their word

for statements which he personally has not verified; and faith in his own

working hypotheses, sufficient to induce him to test his provisional beliefs

by means of appropriate action.

This action may confirm the belief which inspired it.

Alternatively it may bring proof that the original working hypothesis was

ill founded, in which case it will have to be modified until it becomes

conformable to the facts and so passes from the realm of faith to that of

knowledge." ........

........[ to be cotd.

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.

Harper & Row; 1945. Chapter XVIII : Faith [cotd. # 3

 

" The fourth kind of faith is the thing which is commonly called 'religious

faith'.

The usage is justifiable, not because the other kinds of faith are not

fundamental in religion just as they are in secular affairs, but because

this willed assent to propositions which are known to be unverifiable occurs

in religion, and only in religion, as a characteristic addition to faith as

trust, faith in authority and faith in unverified but verifiable

propositions.

This is the kind of faith which, according to Christian theologians,

justifies and saves.

In its extreme and most uncompromising forms, such a doctrine can be very

dangerous.

Here, for example, is a passage one of Luther's letters: Esto peccator, et

pecca fortiter; sed fortius crede et gaude in Christo, qui victor est

peccati, mortis et mundi. Peccandum est quam diu sic sumus; vita haec non

est habitatio justitiae. [ Be a sinner and sin strongly; but yet more

strongly believe and rejoice in Christ, who is the conqueror of sin, death

and the world. So long as we are as we are, there must be sinning; this life

is not the dwelling place of righteousness."]

To the danger that faith in the doctrine of justification by faith may serve

as an excuse for and even an invitation to sin must be added another danger,

namely, that the faith which is supposed to save may be faith in

propositions not merely unverifiable, but repugnat to reason and the moral

sense, and entirely at variance with the findings of those who have

fulfilled the conditions of spiritual insight into the Nature of Things.

'This is the acme of faith', says Luther in his De Servo Arbitrio, 'to

believe that God who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that He

is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to

damnation, so that He seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and to

be more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort of reason I could

conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful

and just, there would be no need of faith.'

Revelation, (which, when it is genuine, is simply the record of the

immediate experience of those who are pure enough in heart and poor enough

in spirit to be able to see God) says nothing at all of those hideous

doctrines, to which the will forces the quite naturally and rightly

reluctant intellect to give assent.

Such notions are the product, not of the insight of saints, but of the busy

phantasy of jurists, who were so far from having transcended selfness and

the prejudices of education that they had the folly and presumption to

interpret the universe in terms of the Jewish and Roman Law with which they

happened to be familiar.

'Woe unto you lawyers,' said Christ. The denunciation was prophetic and for

all time. " ......

.................. [to be cotd.

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Sunder Hattangadi wrote:

> Namaste,

>

>

> The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.

> Harper & Row; 1945. Chapter XVIII : Faith [cotd. # 3

>

> " The fourth kind of faith is the thing which is commonly called 'religious

> faith'.

> The usage is justifiable, not because the other kinds of faith are not

> fundamental in religion just as they are in secular affairs, but because

> this willed assent to propositions which are known to be unverifiable occurs

> in religion, and only in religion, as a characteristic addition to faith as

> trust, faith in authority and faith in unverified but verifiable

> propositions.

> This is the kind of faith which, according to Christian theologians,

> justifies and saves.

> In its extreme and most uncompromising forms, such a doctrine can be very

> dangerous.

> Here, for example, is a passage one of Luther's letters: Esto peccator, et

> pecca fortiter; sed fortius crede et gaude in Christo, qui victor est

> peccati, mortis et mundi. Peccandum est quam diu sic sumus; vita haec non

> est habitatio justitiae. [ Be a sinner and sin strongly; but yet more

> strongly believe and rejoice in Christ, who is the conqueror of sin, death

> and the world. So long as we are as we are, there must be sinning; this life

> is not the dwelling place of righteousness."]

> To the danger that faith in the doctrine of justification by faith may serve

> as an excuse for and even an invitation to sin must be added another danger,

> namely, that the faith which is supposed to save may be faith in

> propositions not merely unverifiable, but repugnat to reason and the moral

> sense, and entirely at variance with the findings of those who have

> fulfilled the conditions of spiritual insight into the Nature of Things.

> 'This is the acme of faith', says Luther in his De Servo Arbitrio, 'to

> believe that God who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that He

> is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to

> damnation, so that He seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and to

> be more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort of reason I could

> conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful

> and just, there would be no need of faith.'

> Revelation, (which, when it is genuine, is simply the record of the

> immediate experience of those who are pure enough in heart and poor enough

> in spirit to be able to see God) says nothing at all of those hideous

> doctrines, to which the will forces the quite naturally and rightly

> reluctant intellect to give assent.

> Such notions are the product, not of the insight of saints, but of the busy

> phantasy of jurists, who were so far from having transcended selfness and

> the prejudices of education that they had the folly and presumption to

> interpret the universe in terms of the Jewish and Roman Law with which they

> happened to be familiar.

> 'Woe unto you lawyers,' said Christ. The denunciation was prophetic and for

> all time. " ......

> .................. [to be cotd.

>

>

 

 

namaste.

 

While waiting for the remaining excerpts of Aldous Huxley's views on

Faith, let me express my views on this installment quoted above.

 

I feel Aldous Huxley completely missed the point on what he called

religious faith. As I read the passage posted by shri Sunder (and I

must admit I have not read Aldous Huxley's works seriously before),

I see a cynical mind with an axe to grind. I get the impression that

he wishes to use the weapon of his views on faith to settle an account

of Luther's letters and hammer them down to pulp. In the whole passage

I see only a preconceived opinion of faith and no objective looking

at it. Or may be, his views expressed here, are the outcome of his

being exposed too much to Luther's doctrines. The more I read that

excerpt the more I feel that he is turned off faith by being exposed

to religious dogma.

 

He grudgingly accpts that there is something called insight of the

saints, but he dismisses it because his thinking on faith is clouded

by his exposure to what he calls christian theologians.

 

My knowledge of western theology is zero. I cannot differentiate

the views of Luther from Christ, for example. But still, I see the

point Huxley argues here is faulty.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.

Harper & Row; 1945. Chapter XVIII : Faith [cotd. # 4

 

" The core and spiritual heart of all the higher religions is the Perennial

Philosophy; and the Perennial Philosophy can be assented to and acted upon

without resort to the kind of faith, about which Luther was writing in the

foregoing passages.

There must, of course, be faith as trust--for confidence in one's fellows is

the beginning of charity towards men, and confidence not only in the

material, but also the moral and spiritual reliability of the universe, is

the beginning of charity or love-knowledge in relation to God.

There must also be faith in authority--the authority of those whose

selflessness has qualified them to know the spiritual Ground of all being by

direct acquaintance as well as by report.

And finally there must be faith in such propositions about Reality as are

enunciated by philosophers in the light of genuine revelation--propositions

which the believer knows that he can, if he is prepared to fulfil the

necessary conditions, verify for himself.

But, so long as the Perennial Philosophy is accepted in its essential

simplicity, there is no need of willed assent to propositions known in

advance as inverifiable.

Here it is necessary to add that such unverifiable propositions may become

verifiable to the extent that intense faith affects the psychic substratum

and so creates an existence, whose derived objectivity can actually be

discovered 'out there'.

Let us, however, remember that an existence which derives its objectivity

from the mental activity of those who intensely believe in it cannot

possibly be the spiritual Ground of the world, and that a mind busily

engaged in the voluntary and intellectual activity, which is 'religious

faith' cannot possibly be in the state of selflessness and alert passivity

which is the necessary condition of the unitive knowledge of the Ground.

That is why Buddhists affirm that 'loving faith leads to heaven; but

obedience to the Dharma leads to Nirvana.'

Faith in the existence and power of any supernatural entity which is less

than ultimate spiritual Reality, and in any form of worship that falls short

of self-naughting, will certainly, if the object of faith is intrinsically

good, result in improvement of character, and probably in posthumous

survival of the improved personality under 'heavenly' conditions.

But this personal survival within what is still the temporal order is not

the eternal life of timeless union with the Spirit.

This eternal life 'stands in the knowledge' of the Godhead, not in faith in

anything less than the Godhead. " ...........

...................[to be continued and concluded.

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Ram Chandran wrote:

> Hari Om Gummuluruji:

>

> It is difficult for me to judge your criticism on

> Aldous Huxley on his views on 'faith.' On the same

> score, I do want to give the benefit of doubts to

> Aldous Huxley's views on 'faith.' I believe that you

> may have some very valid points that why Aldous

> Huxley's views are faulty. May I request you to

> explain objectively your reasonings. It would be quite

> educational for all of us to understand what faith is.

> The issue of 'faith' is subjective and can be

> subjected to various interpretations at different

> contexts.

>

> I am looking forward to your more elaborate views on

> this important issue.

>

> warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

 

 

namaste shri Ram Chandran,

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

Firstly let me say that I would like to use the word 'shraddha'

rather than 'faith'. In fact at the beginning of this thread,

I mentioned that may be we use the word shraddha rather than

faith. As you say, 'faith' is subjective and can be subjected

to various interpretations at different contexts. However, the

word 'shraddha' has a much more definitive meaning. While faith

may or may not play a role in attaining jnAnam (depending on

what meaning we give to the word 'faith'), shraddha always

has a pivotal and decisive role in attaining jnAnam. [i use

the word 'attain' in the previous sentence for lack of a better

word].

 

If you want me to write on shraddha, I will be very glad to do.

On 'faith', I would rather not, because as you say, faith is

amenable to various interpretations. The meaning I give to word

faith is the meaning I give to word shraddha.

 

May be, shri Sunder, in this series, or may be shri Sadananda, may

like to take up both words and try to examine them critically.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Gummuluruji:

 

It is difficult for me to judge your criticism on

Aldous Huxley on his views on 'faith.' On the same

score, I do want to give the benefit of doubts to

Aldous Huxley's views on 'faith.' I believe that you

may have some very valid points that why Aldous

Huxley's views are faulty. May I request you to

explain objectively your reasonings. It would be quite

educational for all of us to understand what faith is.

The issue of 'faith' is subjective and can be

subjected to various interpretations at different

contexts.

 

I am looking forward to your more elaborate views on

this important issue.

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

>

>

> While waiting for the remaining excerpts of Aldous

> Huxley's views on

> Faith, let me express my views on this installment

> quoted above.

>

> I feel Aldous Huxley completely missed the point on

> what he called

> religious faith. As I read the passage posted by

> shri Sunder (and I

> must admit I have not read Aldous Huxley's works

> seriously before),

> I see a cynical mind with an axe to grind. I get the

> impression that

> he wishes to use the weapon of his views on faith to

> settle an account

> of Luther's letters and hammer them down to pulp. In

> the whole passage

> I see only a preconceived opinion of faith and no

> objective looking

> at it. Or may be, his views expressed here, are the

> outcome of his

> being exposed too much to Luther's doctrines. The

> more I read that

> excerpt the more I feel that he is turned off faith

> by being exposed

> to religious dogma.

>

> He grudgingly accpts that there is something called

> insight of the

> saints, but he dismisses it because his thinking on

> faith is clouded

> by his exposure to what he calls christian

> theologians.

>

> My knowledge of western theology is zero. I cannot

> differentiate

> the views of Luther from Christ, for example. But

> still, I see the

> point Huxley argues here is faulty.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Ram Chandran wrote:

> Hari Om Gummuluruji:

>

> It is difficult for me to judge your criticism on

> Aldous Huxley on his views on 'faith.' On the same

> score, I do want to give the benefit of doubts to

> Aldous Huxley's views on 'faith.' I believe that you

> may have some very valid points that why Aldous

> Huxley's views are faulty. May I request you to

> explain objectively your reasonings. It would be quite

> educational for all of us to understand what faith is.

> The issue of 'faith' is subjective and can be

> subjected to various interpretations at different

> contexts.

>

> I am looking forward to your more elaborate views on

> this important issue.

>

> warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

 

namaste.

 

Shri Ram Chandran asked me to explain why I consider Aldous

Huxley's argument on religious faith (as excerpted by shri

Sunder) is faulty.

 

Firstly, I give the same meaning to faith as shraddha. Without

going into elaborate explanation, shraddha (faith) can be said

to be something which the human intellect cannot logically deduce.

There is the gut feeling that it is right but that cannot be

logically put forward. The 'faith' or shraddha cannot be set

aside easily. Only some *internal* re-affirmation is required

before it becomes knowledge and part of the being. So, from my

understanding, faith is not that which is forced on any person.

This is what the person truly and naturally accepts without any

outside pressure or intervention. I will expand on this in a

future post on shraddha if no one else takes up posting on that.

 

Now, why do I consider Aldous Huxley's argument faulty?

 

Aldous Huxley's quote:

> In its extreme and most uncompromising forms, such a doctrine can be

> very dangerous.

> Here, for example, is a passage one of Luther's letters: Esto peccator,

> et pecca fortiter; sed fortius crede et gaude in Christo, qui victor est

> peccati, mortis et mundi. Peccandum est quam diu sic sumus; vita haec

> non est habitatio justitiae. [ Be a sinner and sin strongly; but yet

> mor strongly believe and rejoice in Christ, who is the conqueror of sin,

> death and the world. So long as we are as we are, there must be sinning;

> this life is not the dwelling place of righteousness."]

 

Faith is an internal commitment by the individual. Faith is not forced

by anything external. What Huxley is talking about here is not faith

but coercion or pressure or doctrine.

 

Aldous Huxley's quote:

> To the danger that faith in the doctrine of justification by faith may

> serve as an excuse for and even an invitation to sin must be added

> another danger, namely, that the faith which is supposed to save may

> be faith in propositions not merely unverifiable, but repugnat to reason

> and the moral sense, and entirely at variance with the findings of those

> who have fulfilled the conditions of spiritual insight into the Nature

> of Things.

 

This argument cannot hold. What are the conditions of spiritual insight

that are fulfilled? When one is talking of insight, one is talking

beyond conditions and logic. There is a missing ingredient here for

insight. And that is shraddha. Insight cannot be demanded of. It has

to dawn. And shraddha, faith is required. If you accept insight, then

accept something called shraddha or faith.

 

Aldous Huxley's quote:

> Revelation, (which, when it is genuine, is simply the record of the

> immediate experience of those who are pure enough in heart and poor

> enough in spirit to be able to see God) says nothing at all of those

> hideous doctrines, to which the will forces the quite naturally and

> rightly reluctant intellect to give assent.

 

If you have shraddha (faith), the intellect will not be reluctant.

If there is shraddha (faith), "the will forcing the quite naturally

and rightly reluctant intellect to give assent" cannot take place.

That is, the faith will be there only after the assent of the

intellect. Thus, Huxley is not talking of faith (shraddha) when

he says the assent is forced on a rightly reluctant intellect.

It is not even belief. Huxley is talking of doctrines.

 

Thus, in my view, Aldous Huxley's arguments are not internally

consistent and are faulty.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

advaitin <advaitin >

Tuesday, August 08, 2000 7:07 AM

Re: Knowledge, faith, and belief

 

[...]

>I feel Aldous Huxley completely missed the point on what he called

>religious faith. As I read the passage posted by shri Sunder (and I

>must admit I have not read Aldous Huxley's works seriously before),

>I see a cynical mind with an axe to grind. I get the impression that

>he wishes to use the weapon of his views on faith to settle an account

>of Luther's letters and hammer them down to pulp. In the whole passage

>I see only a preconceived opinion of faith and no objective looking

>at it. Or may be, his views expressed here, are the outcome of his

>being exposed too much to Luther's doctrines. The more I read that

>excerpt the more I feel that he is turned off faith by being exposed

>to religious dogma.

>

>He grudgingly accpts that there is something called insight of the

>saints, but he dismisses it because his thinking on faith is clouded

>by his exposure to what he calls christian theologians.

>

>My knowledge of western theology is zero. I cannot differentiate

>the views of Luther from Christ, for example. But still, I see the

>point Huxley argues here is faulty.

 

If I may interject, I think one almost has to have grown up in the West

under the influence of Christianity to understand the kind of resentment and

negativity that Huxley expresses. There is a strain particularly of

Protestant Christianity that takes the originally vital and living impulse

of its founder and, as Huxley says, degrades it to the level of hard, cold,

rigid, doctrines that are both morally and intellectually repugnant. Among

these doctrines is the idea that we are all born guilty, and that we can

potentially achieve salvation only by means of unquestioning faith in these

same doctrines, which include the distorted notion that God forgives 'sins'

only by means of the suffering and death for our sake of His innocent Son or

Avatar. This mentality is often accompanied by a tight, judgmental moralism

that seeks to condemn rather than understand or encourage, and can amount to

little more than poorly disguised contempt for and resentment of one's

fellow man.

 

Huxley was outraged by this entire scheme, as any thinking and feeling human

being would be, and throughout his writings he was attempting to draw a

sharp distinction between purity, simplicity, and profundity of Vedanta on

the one hand, as against the more craven variations of Christianity on the

other. The distinction is also between faith in the sense of a fully

plausible and justified means to an end (meaning actual personal experience

of the truth of oneself), versus so-called faith as a club that some

Christians have used down through the centuries to beat others into

submission. And if some of our Indian brothers and sisters find him too

harsh and critical, it is only because of the purity and innocence of their

own minds and hearts, that would probably find the attitudes he describes

inconceivable.

 

I hope no one interprets my words as being anti-Christian as such, because I

am not. There have been many great Christian mystics, including Meister

Eckhart to name only one. But unfortunately he and many other Christians who

were following the original impulse of Jesus have been viewed with suspicion

and hostility by the established church.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I am most grateful to Robert for giving the background of Aldous

Huxley's writings. It is very much appreciated.

 

I want to make clear to the List that I do not mean any disrespect

to Aldous Huxley and his writings by my comment. My understanding

of faith is vastly different from what Huxley calls faith in that

passage. That is what I wish to present. I realize now how vastly

different a view can be had of this single word 'faith' which is

purported to be a translation of the sanskrit word 'shraddha'.

What a difference between the original word and this supposed

equivalent word.

 

During my travels in India during the early summer, I spent sometime

at Hrishikesh at KailAsa Ashram. I had the darshan of the

ManDaleshwar and we spent some time discussing the Isha upanishad.

One general advice he gave me is: improve your knowledge of sanskrit

and study the shankara-bhAShyAs in the original. The english or

other language translations for some of the sanskrit words can lead

you astray.

 

I think it is a very valuable advice.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----

[Guest guest]

Namaskar,

 

I want to second Gummuluruji's congratulative message

to Robert. Robert's posting is quite important and

make this forum more purposeful and meaningful. We

have gathered in the Cyberspace with different

backgrounds and we have lot to gain by such exchanges.

 

 

In several of Robert's postings, he has rightly

stressed the importance of cultural background for

understanding concepts developed in different

cultures. His point is well taken and our

understanding Aldous Huxely's writings has been

greatly enhanced with his fine posting.

 

This also reminds me another useful guideline while

responding to postings. We are all better off giving

the benefits of doubts to a posting which uses

concepts and framework that we are not used to. In

those cases we should explore clarifications instead

of finding faults!

 

Thanks again to Gummuluru and Robert for the

clarifications,

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

>

> namaste.

>

> I am most grateful to Robert for giving the

> background of Aldous

> Huxley's writings. It is very much appreciated.