faith

[Guest guest]

Chandraji wrote:

 

There are some fundamental differences between "faith" as envisaged

by Abrahamic traditions and "Shradha" (closesest possible

equivalent) in Indic traditions. Shradha means faith born of

understanding. Faith could be born out of many other reasons as well

e.g. expectation of irrational gains, greed, ignorance etc. So when

some one say "Shradha" in "Bhagwana" or "Guru" means faith, born

out, in them after knowing (atleast partially) what they are through

our intellect (Buddhi). For example some one may develop "Shradha"

in Bhagwan Raman Maharshi after reading/listening his sayings and

knwoing his true nature. Unless their is some element of "Aatma

Kalyana" involved mere faith doesn't amount to Shradha. Sanskrit

word for other kinds of faith is "Preeti".

 

In short Abrahamic traditions are faith("preeti" type not "shradha"

type) oriented while Indic traditions are Prajna or wisdom

oriented. The former deal with intensifies of feelings, the latter

aim at awakening the mind. In Indic traditions, Shradha (faith) is

that which lies hidden in the recession of the heart; so, faith

means faith in the hidden truths of the soul, faith in the

unrealised possibilities of the mind.

 

Regards

Chandra

 

 

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Chandraji,

I would not be so bold as to combat a generalisation

about Christianity, Judaism and Islam so I will

focus on the Christian religion which I know well and

the Hindu religion which I have come to know a little of.

Fideism is the term used for the doctrine that religious

belief is founded on pure faith and faith alone (fides)

and not on any evidence or reasoning. Amongst famous

holders of the extreme form of this doctrine is the Dane

Kierkegaard. The majority view in the central Christian

tradition, the Catholic, would not be in agreement

with Thomas Aquinas holding that there were

proofs of the existence of God or that those proofs

were at least not self-contradictory. A moderate form

of fideism was held by Augustine whose expression 'I

believe in order that I might understand' viewed faith

as making sense of the cosmos.

 

Shankara would put all supersensuous things outside

the bounds of reasoning cf. B.S.B. II.i.11 and B.S.B.II.i.27.

Of course once they are admitted on the authority

of the scriptures then inferences are made and

conclusions are drawn, philosophical observations

about the nature of self-identity are elaborated

and linked to scripture.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

PraNams to All,

 

Sir ,

For me ,i define Faith as not belief.

Belief is when you have some measure of what is goin to happen.For Example...I

may say i am going to pass this exam with flying colors.I can say that because i

had studied well..So there some knowledge in Belief.

 

However , Faith is superior to belief. Faith needs you to be steadfast even

when you dont have even the slightest support of Facts or knowledge.Therefore ,

Faith is more difficult to have.It needs one to have trust without facts only at

the call of your innermost voice.This voice is always correct .

Belief usually follows logic.Faith is something a baby has

in Mother.It has utmost trust in her...inspite of not knowing anything about

Mother.

 

But faith in GOD is even superior for we dont see him

 

 

 

 

 

ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

Namaste All,

What is faith? A simple question surely. Faith

is like faith you know, you believe in something

you have faith in it, you trust it. . What's the

difference between faith and a creed or a

set of articles that you publicly adhere to

which create a community? Suppose what

binds you together is common acceptation of a

scripture. You believe that this is the truth.

However what can arise is "multiple and

possibly indeterminate interpretations of what

the writer of a text is saying"(Simon Blackburn/Truth).

This may lead to schism and the feeling

that there is no truth and that therefore

faith is a fatuous attempt to find certainty

in a haphazard cosmos. Better light a

penny candle than curse the dark.

 

There may be another way in which faith can

live with uncertainty. Think of the faithful

as a group with a set of common concerns

and a broad agreement on certain

symbols and rituals. They may have a

common teacher with whom they feel they

have established an inner relationship with.

They believe that this person is guiding them

through their lives and speaking to them

mysteriously via incidents in their lives.

In a strange way those who are inimical to

them may give the best upadesha. Mostly

though they pick their way along carefully,

treating absolute certainty as a mirage.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://in.messenger.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all.

 

This discussion is a little disheartening.

 

Are we discussing belief, faith or the Sanskrit shraddA of Vedanta?

 

If it is the last, then I wouldn't dare translate it but rather define

it as a logical conviction that impels an irreversible total surrender.

With shraddha, one has already burnt the boats. The other two English

words imply the possibility of future correction, where one needs the

boats again. I am afraid, we don't have any use for those two words in

advaita, where we are too sure of the soundness of the mother ship and

have irrevocably surrendered to her bosom.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Ram Chandran-jI,

 

Namaste.

 

Some comments on your good points on believers and non-believing

intellectuals ;

> There are great number of followers (believers) of the positions

> taken by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhava. I do believe that they

have

> strong conviction on what they believe. Consequently, the believers

> of a specific acharya will likely reject the positions taken by the

> other acharyas. In addition to the above believers, the category of

> nonbelievers do exist. They believe in their intellectual capacity

to

> resolve the questions related to metaphysical assertions.

>

 

You are right.

 

There are both believers and non-believing intellectuals in every

school (at least as I know in my school). Only thing I disagree with

you is , the later types (i.e non-believing intellectuals) are not on

themselves resolving the metaphysical questions as you are trying to

say. Instead, they do apply their intellectual and rationality to

question and understand the tenets of the doctrine propounded by

their Acharaya.

 

This is exactly the doubt Arjuna also gets in gIta ;

 

nanu j~nAnopAyavishhayA vAcho.anyonyaviruddhA matabhedena santi |

ataH kathamekatra tvadIyAyAmevopAyavishhayavAchi nishhThAshabditaM

vishvAsaM karomItyata Aha --

 

( But there are many mutually conflicting doctrines as sources of

knowledge. Thus, how am I to believe that these statements of yours

alone are worthy of trust? )

 

For that, the methodology (not the conclusion) proposed by SriKrishna

is amazing :

 

vyavasAyAtmikA buddhirekeha kurunandana |

bahushAkhA hyanantAshcha buddhayo.avyavasAyinAm.h || II-41 ||

 

(There is only one kind of correct knowledge in the world; many

branched, indeed, infinitely variant, are those that are

not correct.)

 

On this verse, Sri Raghavendra-tIrtha (of Mantralaya fame) comments

as ;

 

vyavasAyAtmikA pramANanirNItArthanishchayAtmikA nishchayajanikA

buddhiH karaNavyutpattyA vAk.h | ekaiva ekopAyavishhayaiva iha

loke vede cha | na tatra vipratipattirasti | sa eva

vaishhNavadharmAnushhThAnahetuH | avyavasAyinAM pramANa-

nirNItArthanishchayahInAnAM buddhayaH upAyavishhayAH vAchaH

bahushAkhAH bahumukhAH viruddhanAnArthavishhayAH anantAshcha |

tathA cha kathamaprAmANikamatavivAdena prAmANike.arthe avishvAsaH ?

mayA vaxyamANopAyastu prAmANika, iti tatra tatra vyaktIbhavishhyati

iti bhAvaH || 41 ||

 

[`vyavasAyAtmikA', i.e., that which is properly based on, and decides

the purport of, pramANa, and causes certainty in the mind, such

statements. Only one, i.e., dealing with only one solution, in

authored statements (such as those of Vyaasa), and in the Vedas as

well. There is no contradiction in that. It alone is the source

of observance of the Vaishnava-dharma. `avyavasAyinAM', i.e., those

lacking in the certainty of the meaning of the pramANa-s, such

`buddhayaH', i.e., such statements of possible solutions, are

`bahushAkhAH', or multi-faceted, have many conflicting propositions,

and are even infinite [in variance]. Thus, how is it the case that

based on conflict with incorrect doctrines, the purport of the

correct one is to be doubted? The solution I (Krishna) will offer

is correct, thus it will become clear by and by -- so is the

purport. ]

 

As you can see, the idea that there are many doctrines which conflict

with one another, is no reason to doubt the correctness of one, or

even to doubt the fact that *there is only one correct one*. It is

necessary to examine the claims of any doctrine to see if they hold

up against critical examination; if they don't, then that doctrine

does not hold weight in a conflict with another one. Thus, conflict

with

many incorrect doctrines does not cause doubt about the correctness

of the one correct one; as Sri Jayatiirtha puts it, `aprAmANikeshhu

vidyamAnA.api vipratipattiH kiM karishhyati?' -- even given the

presence of incorrect ones, how does that cause contradiction?

 

 

Even before compare and contrast his system with other systems, these

types of followers tries to find the rationality and soundness in

their own school. It is at this point the soundness of the system

plays the important role. For these types of followers, bhakti on

their Acharya is the direct consequence of rigorous analysis and

understanding.

 

Say for example (I'll use your quote here with your permission) when

the tenets of the system is propounded as

 

"With the presence of 'avidhya' every explanation describing Brahman

and World is just a speculation. Consequently your position also

qualifies as a speculation and that is the reason for the confusion. "

 

For a believer, there is no problem so what so ever and they are

happy!

 

But for non-believers (they may belong to same school or not, and

that is not the issue here), they would have a question "if

everything is speculation due to presence of avidya, why not the very

theory `everything is speculation due to avidya' itself is not a

speculation? Is there any possibility of having pramANa to prove this

theory at all, for any pramANa-s are also another speculation. Can

this theory itself escape such purview of speculation or not? If yes,

what makes this theory escape such speculation? If not, how can we

say everything is speculation due to avidya? Etc etc"

> But in spite of apparant differences, there is still

> fundamental 'unity' in these diversity of positions held by the

> various religious beliefs. All that we need to agree is to respect

> both the believers and move on with our life as seekers of the

Truth.

 

Sri.Ramachandran-ji, I can assure you that, at the belief level we do

respect various other beliefs from other schools. There is no doubt.

Nobody has right to reject other's belief when one has his own

belief for himself.

 

It is only at the knowledge level, you see us crossing the sword with

others. Unfortunately it gave the impression that Dvaitins are with

extreame fanatism.

 

As such, the presence of "fanaticism" after due inquiry and decision

is to be expected. After all, one is a "fanatic" about the fact that

two and two make four, and always reject alternative assertions that

they make five, six, seven etc.

 

praNAm.

Srinivas.