faith

[Guest guest]

Mr. Michael wrote

 

***********************************************************

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

 

****************************************************************

 

Dear Michael,

 

i am saying exactly same. All the indic traditions define the

ultimate reality and than tell a very clear-cut methodology to

realize that ultimate. There is no parallel to this in Abrahamic

traditions where emphasis is more on making leap of blind faith.

There is not even a trace of hankism in Indic traditions.

 

Regarding your comment on Adi Shankara, you are covering only upto

written text and inference. Direct expreience is superior to the

prior mentioned two methods.

 

 

Regards

Chandra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

>

> 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]

Namaste All,

 

I accept that faith must be different from shraddha.

Faith I have come to regard as a gift or grace that must

constantly be established and renewed. Shradda

I am told comes on like a daylight bulb after a

wrestle with logic akin to simple arithmetic.

 

B.G.2:7 My inner being is disabled by that vice of

dejection. My mind is bewildered as to what is right.

I ask you, which would be better? Tell me for

certain. I am your student, I have come to ask

you for help. Instruct me!

 

It seems that Arjuna was having a crisis of

faith, if he had shradda he would have been fine.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji.

 

I would rather that Arjuna had shraddA. He clung to the Feet of the

Lord! He was a little confused. That was a blessing. We have the

GItA!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

> It seems that Arjuna was having a crisis of

> faith, if he had shradda he would have been fine.

[Guest guest]

I have heard the term "unshakable faith "? Is this the kind of faith that Arjuna

had towards Lord Krishna? What actually is unshakable faith? Is it true

devotion?

Regards,

Kaumaudi

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste Michaelji.

 

I would rather that Arjuna had shraddA. He clung to the Feet of the

Lord! He was a little confused. That was a blessing. We have the

GItA!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

> It seems that Arjuna was having a crisis of

> faith, if he had shradda he would have been fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Religion and spirituality Advaita Bhagavad gita

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos

Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,

whatever.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mr. Micheal wrote:

 

********************************************************

Shradda I am told comes on like a daylight bulb after a

wrestle with logic akin to simple arithmetic.

********************************************************

 

Dear Michael,

 

Shradha was defined by Adi Shankara in VivekChudamani as:

 

Shastrasya Guru Vakyasya Satyabudhyavadharanam

Sa Shrdha Kathita Sadbhiryaya Vastupalabhyate

 

VivekCudamani-25

 

"The hodling on to the Knowledge of Truth of the scriptures and

Gurus sayings is "Shradha". It is by means of this that reality is

grasped."

 

 

As any one can see it is clealry different from leap of blind faith

as demanded in Abrahamic traditions. One can not hold on to the

knowledge of scriptures unless he critically questions them and make

sure that they are at least self-consistent. Any body who decides to

study the six systems (shadarshana)of Indian Philosphy knows it.

Same holds for Guru sayings as well.

 

 

********************************************************

B.G.2:7 My inner being is disabled by that vice of

dejection. My mind is bewildered as to what is right.

I ask you, which would be better? Tell me for

certain. I am your student, I have come to ask

you for help. Instruct me!

 

It seems that Arjuna was having a crisis of

faith, if he had shradda he would have been fine.

 

********************************************************

 

No it was not the crisis of faith. Otherwise he wouldn't have

surrender to the Krishna as his Guru. Arjuna was enjoying the

temporary dispassion (takshanik Vairagya) born out of intense

infatuation to his kinsmen. This becomes clear if one look at the

next sloka of Gita i.e. B.G. 2:8. I reproduce it below.

 

B.G.2:8 Because, I do not see that which can, even after acquiring

on this earth a prosperous kingdom free from enemies and even

sovereignty over the gods, remove my sorrow (which is) blasting the

senses.

 

This perfectly matches with the state of dispassion as defined by

Adi Shankara in Vievek Chudamani.

 

Tada Vairagyam Jihasa ya Darshanasravanadighih

Dehadibrahmaparyante hanitye bhogavastuni

 

VivekCudamani-21

 

"Dispassion is the turning away from what can be seen and heard and

so on in everything which is impermamnent, from the body up to the

Brhamaloka."

 

 

Regards

Chandra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste All,

>

> I accept that faith must be different from shraddha.

> Faith I have come to regard as a gift or grace that must

> constantly be established and renewed. Shradda

> I am told comes on like a daylight bulb after a

> wrestle with logic akin to simple arithmetic.

>

> B.G.2:7 My inner being is disabled by that vice of

> dejection. My mind is bewildered as to what is right.

> I ask you, which would be better? Tell me for

> certain. I am your student, I have come to ask

> you for help. Instruct me!

>

> It seems that Arjuna was having a crisis of

> faith, if he had shradda he would have been fine.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

There seems to be a very different meaning between

the English word (and the western concept of)

'faith,' and the Sanskrit word, 'shraddha.'

 

The English word might be translated as 'blind belief.'

 

And blind belief (as opposed to all reason) is encouraged

in Judeo/Christian religions. The blinder the belief,

the more illogical, the more one clings tenaciously to it

against all reason, the better. That (at least according to

Christianity) assures one an eternal place in heaven.

 

Shraddha (according to what I have been taught) is quite

different and has a very different meaning. Shraddha

can be translated as 'faith pending understanding.'

 

Perhaps an illustration of this type of faith, of shraddha,

is the tenth man story. The leader, who thought the

tenth man had drowned in the river, had enough shraddha

in the words of the wise old man, (who told him that this was

not so), to listen. The leader did not listen with an

attitude of blind belief. He listened with an

attitude of shraddha, as the old man appeared sane and

saintly, and seemed to really 'know' what he was

talking about.

 

With that shraddha (with that faith pending understanding)

the boy listened, and then followed the wise man's words

and instructions.

 

Then the pramana worked and the boy directly saw,

"Oh, indeed I am the tenth man." That is faith pending

understanding. That is the attitude of shraddha

 

It is also my understanding that of all of the

'qualifications' for an adhikari, shraddha is the

most important.

 

This is also stated in the Gita, but I don't know

the Gita or Sanskrit, (my apologies to the scholars here)

the phrase begins "Shraddhavan..."

 

Perhaps others here know the verse, or I will try and

locate it. My understanding is that the

translation of the verse is 'The one who has shraddha,

that one gains this knowledge'

 

It is shraddha (faith pending understanding) that

allows the mind to be available for the pramana to work.

Without shraddha in the words of the teacher, the

mind will not have that availability.

 

So the meaning of the word shraddha is quite different

from the meaning of the English 'faith.' Shraddha

does not mean blind belief. It means listening with

a certain attitude, because I have enough faith

that this teacher and teaching can 'deliver the goods.'

And it is that shraddha, that attitude, which allows

the mind to be available in order to allow the pramana

to work.

 

This is what I have been taught.

 

My pranams, Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108> wrote:

> >

> > So the meaning of the word shraddha is quite different

> > from the meaning of the English 'faith.' Shraddha

> > does not mean blind belief. It means listening with

> > a certain attitude, because I have enough faith

> > that this teacher and teaching can 'deliver the goods.'

> > And it is that shraddha, that attitude, which allows

> > the mind to be available in order to allow the pramana

> > to work.

> >

> > This is what I have been taught.

> >

> > My pranams, Durga

>

> Additionally listening to the teacher with an attitude

> of shraddha does not mean that one does not express

> one's doubts. Expressing doubts, in order that they

> be cleared, is a very important part of the teaching.

>

> So that is also another distinction between the

> western concept of the English word 'faith.'

> Faith, as in blind belief, allows for no doubts.

> In those systems, which have the doctrine of

> blind belief at their core, doubts come from the 'dark side,'

> from evil, and have to be banished, and conquered

> by the application of more blind belief, not answered

> or addressed or cleared to one's satisfaction.

>

> (That is my two posts for today)

>

> Namaskar,

> Durga

 

Namaste Durga,

 

You say 'this is what I have been taught', and I notice in our

discussions recently, (see fwds to advaitajnana@ for a

record), that you don't go beyond the teaching of what you have been

personally taught by your Guru. Is that not blind faith?

 

E.G...A person who hangs on to say dvaita and doesn't entertain at

all advaita, ajativada or even visishtadvaita is using blind faith.

 

I'm not discounting the usefulness of a Guru as Einstein 'said a

fool learns from his own mistakes and wise man from everybody's'.

 

However at some point the 'Inner Guru' has to be the ultimate and

this is Sraddha. For here lies no interpretation but the ultimate

Truth. Here we let go of our attachments to Gurus with form and

their ideas, and work with out own Sraddha.....ONS...Tony.