Faith/Reason

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all Advaitins,

 

What is happening here is that we are getting

confused between the certitude that comes from

faith and the certitude that comes from rational

demonstration. The certitude that comes from

faith should more truly be termed adherence and

it of its nature is stronger that the certitude

that comes from demonstration because it is

connected to a force that is stronger than that of

reason viz. the power of

God/Ishwara/Pure Consciousness/Brahman/Wotan Tanka etc.

What you adhere to in faith is stronger

than your rationality because it involves your whole being.

 

These are the distinctions that make looking

for rationality of the apodeictic kind in

matters of faith a futile project. Faith

is a matter of adherence and not one of rational

certainty so combing the scripture for

contradictions is beside the point because

even if you find them and you very likely

will, no rational offence has been committed.

 

I am stating this position at its strongest.

I welcome suggestions.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Michael

 

Greetings.

 

I agree with what you say, except I use the word belief in the place of

faith. Faith I would distinguish as belief with understanding - in the

sense that it is not irrational. When a scientist makes a hypothesis and

proceeds with an investigation, he has a faith but it is based on some

understanding.

 

At least Vedanta insists on the faith backed to some extent with

rational analysis - that is the purpose of nyaaya suutra-s too. On the

other hand, it is not pure rational analysis since that does not work in

the field of spirituality. That is the reason why Veda becomes a

pramaaNa.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Namaste to all Advaitins,

>

> What is happening here is that we are getting

> confused between the certitude that comes from

> faith and the certitude that comes from rational

> demonstration. The certitude that comes from

> faith should more truly be termed adherence and

> it of its nature is stronger that the certitude

> that comes from demonstration because it is

> connected to a force that is stronger than that of

> reason viz. the power of

> God/Ishwara/Pure Consciousness/Brahman/Wotan Tanka etc.

> What you adhere to in faith is stronger

> than your rationality because it involves your whole being.

>

> These are the distinctions that make looking

> for rationality of the apodeictic kind in

> matters of faith a futile project. Faith

> is a matter of adherence and not one of rational

> certainty so combing the scripture for

> contradictions is beside the point because

> even if you find them and you very likely

> will, no rational offence has been committed.

>

> I am stating this position at its strongest.

> I welcome suggestions.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

>

> ------------------------ Sponsor

> --------------------~-->

> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and

> healing

> http://us.click./lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/XUWolB/TM

>

--~->

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity

> of Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji.

 

Kindly permit me to observe as follows:

 

1. What the vedAs say about Truth - like 'Aham BrahmAsmi', 'Tat

Twamasi' etc. are fully (not to some extent) rational derivatives.

 

2. We accept vedic statements about Truth only after thoroughly

examining their rational validity. That is why they become pramANa.

 

3. Thus, the 'faith' of an advaitin is firmly and fully rooted on

reason and logic even if it is academic initially.

 

4. If the pramANa does not pass the test of reason and logic, he is

free to discard it.

 

5. I have not been able to discard it and am prepared to defend it

until I am satisfactorily refuted.

 

6. That is 'faith' in our advaitic context. It comes from reason (I

won't say 'rational demonstration')

 

7. So, the scenario Michael-ji describes is perhaps a confoundment

between imposed blind theological belief and certitude arising from

from reason and logic. The former might look stronger because it has

mass (box-office) appeal. It may have something to do with the

concept of an omnicient, omnipotent God, but, certainly nothing with

the Brahman of Advaita, as the latter demands full reasoning.

 

Am I right?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> I agree with what you say, except I use the word belief in the

place of

> faith. Faith I would distinguish as belief with understanding - in

the

> sense that it is not irrational. When a scientist makes a

hypothesis and

> proceeds with an investigation, he has a faith but it is based on

some

> understanding.

>

> At least Vedanta insists on the faith backed to some extent with

> rational analysis - that is the purpose of nyaaya suutra-s too. On

the

> other hand, it is not pure rational analysis since that does not

work in

> the field of spirituality. That is the reason why Veda becomes a

> pramaaNa.

____________________________

> --- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

> > What is happening here is that we are getting

> > confused between the certitude that comes from

> > faith and the certitude that comes from rational

> > demonstration. The certitude that comes from

> > faith should more truly be termed adherence and

> > it of its nature is stronger that the certitude

> > that comes from demonstration because it is

> > connected to a force that is stronger than that of

> > reason viz. the power of

> > God/Ishwara/Pure Consciousness/Brahman/Wotan Tanka etc.

> > What you adhere to in faith is stronger

> > than your rationality because it involves your whole being.

> >

> > These are the distinctions that make looking

> > for rationality of the apodeictic kind in

> > matters of faith a futile project. Faith

> > is a matter of adherence and not one of rational

> > certainty so combing the scripture for

> > contradictions is beside the point because

> > even if you find them and you very likely

> > will, no rational offence has been committed.

> >

> > I am stating this position at its strongest.

> > I welcome suggestions.

[Guest guest]

(THIS RESPECTED MEMBER IS ONCE AGAIN REMINDED NOT TO QUOTE THE ENTIRE POST IN

REFERENCE.)

 

ADVAITIN MODERATOR

__________________________

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Namaste Sadaji.

 

Kindly permit me to observe as follows:

 

1. What the vedAs say about Truth - like 'Aham BrahmAsmi', 'Tat

Twamasi' etc. are fully (not to some extent) rational derivatives.

.........

__________________

 

---Dear sir,

Is your averment of Mahavakyas being superior to theological

belief by virtue of the former having a more scientific, rational, base, than

the latter? But, is not reason, as well as, logic, also, limited by virtue of

their being merely relatable to the waking state, the reality transcending all

the states? Scientific reason and logic are only a golrified form of belief,

except that they belong to the realm of intellect, as against faith etc

belonging to box-office appeal, as it were, the intellect itself being apriori

a basic manifestation of avidya, which we should gaurd ourselves against in

entering into our system too much in understanding the transcendental truth,

which is neither faith, nor the glorified intellect.

 

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

Shopping

Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Shopping

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sankarramanji.

 

MY COMMENTS ARE IN IN BOLD.

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

 

Is your averment of Mahavakyas being superior to theological belief

by virtue of the former having a more scientific, rational, base,

than the latter?

 

[i WON'T SAY SUPERIOR OR INFERIOR. THE EGO, FOR THE TIME BEING, IS ON

THE SHELF. THE MAHAVAKYAS APPEAL TO MY REASON. I WON'T ALSO USE THE

WORD SCIENTIFIC AS IT MIGHT MEAN EMPIRICAL.]

 

But, is not reason, as well as, logic, also, limited by virtue of

their being merely relatable to the waking state, the reality

transcending all the states?

 

[TRUE. BUT REASON AND LOGIC ARE MY 'GIVEN' AND I HAVE TO NECESSARILY

WORK WITH THEM. YOU HAVE USED THEM NOW IN TRYING TO FRAME YOUR

QUESTIONS, HAVEN'T YOU? I AM SURE I AM IN THE WAKING STATE NOW

(UNTIL I WAKE UP TO REALIZE THAT I WAS COMMUNICATING WITH

SANKARRAMANJI IN A DREAM!). THAT AGAIN IS A 'GIVEN'. I AM SURE YOU

TOO ARE IN THE WAKING STATE. I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRITING TO YOU FROM

TRANSCENDENCE!]

 

Scientific reason and logic are only a golrified form of belief,

except that they belong to the realm of intellect, as against faith

etc belonging to box-office appeal, as it were, the intellect itself

being apriori a basic manifestation of avidya, which we should gaurd

ourselves against in entering into our system too much in

understanding the transcendental truth, which is neither faith, nor

the glorified intellect.

 

[iF INTELLECT IS REJECTED AS BEING APRIORI BASIC MANIFESTATION OF

AVIDYA, THEN WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH TO DO ENQUIRY? HOW DO YOU GO

ABOUT "UNDERSTANDING THE TRANSCENDAL TRUTH"? WHAT FACULTY OF MIND

HAVE YOU USED TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT "TRANSCENDANTL TRUTH IS

NEITHER FAITH NOR THE GLORIFIED INTELLECT". DID YOU DO SOME THINKING

BEFORE REACHING THAT CONCLUSION? BET, YOU SURE DID. WHAT WOULD YOU

CALL THAT MENTAL FACULTY WHICH HELPED YOU WORD YOUR CONCLUSION? WAS

IT EPIPHANY?]

 

PRANAMS.

 

(I HAVE ALREADY OVERSHOT MY DAILY QUOTA OF TWO POSTS. SO IT WOULD BE

SILENCE FOR THE REST OF TODAY.]

 

MADATHIL NAIR

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

It seems that you have chosen some carefully selected words with

certain distinct interpretation (which is more familiar to you than

others). Honestly, I find your words and sentences more complicated

than Sanskrit words and phrases that I am familiar with in Gita and

Upanishads. But the sages of the Upanishads have found some alternate

means of explanations through analogy and story telling! I do want to

request you do the same so that more members may be able to

appreciate your assertions without confusion.

 

Your very first statement is "What is happening here is that we are

getting

confused between the certitude that comes from faith and the

certitude that comes from rational demonstration." It appears as

statement distinguishing between religion (based on faith) and

science (based on hypothesis that is subject to verification by

empirical facts).

 

Vedanta addresses two questions – (1) Atman or the inner core of the

being which is eternal and changeless and (2) body, mind an intellect

or the outer shell of the being which is limited by space and time

and is subject to change. Once we understand and have full faith on

this Vedantic framework, our confusion can be permanently removed.

This will enable us to accept Atamn as the Truth and reject

everything other than the Atman. I would revise your statement with

the modification –"The faith and conviction on the validity of

Vedanta is most essential to apply vedanta as a means to discriminate

between what is `real' and what is `unreal.' The famous quotation

from Saint Augustine profoundly clarifies the role of faith: "faith

is to believe what we don't see, and its reward is to see what we

believe!"

 

Warmest regards,

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva:

 

What is happening here is that we are getting

confused between the certitude that comes from

faith and the certitude that comes from rational

demonstration.