faith

[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

[Guest guest]

Mr. Tony wrote:

 

""

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.

 

""

 

Indeed above is blind faith. But point of discussion is not the

behavior of a particular follower of a particlar religious

tradition. Rather it is the tradition itself. It is in this light we

are trying to analyse how the "faith" is envisaged by each

tradition.

 

 

Regards

Chandra

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> 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.

>

[Guest guest]

Durgaji wrote:

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)

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

Namaste Durga,

Is this the Tweedleldum school of logic?: anything

I say three times is true. In my previous post to

Chandraji I gave a short summary of the position

on faith and reason which runs the gamut from

the fideism of Kierkagaard to the intellectualism

of Thomas Aquinas via the moderate position of

Augustine. You choose to ignore this or have you

some better information from some authority of

your own. By the way I hold no brief for any

of the Christian traditions and reject unthinking

prejudice from whatever quarter it comes.

 

Let us go to Chap.I Section 4 of the Catholic

Catechism(summary of doctrine) in which the

question is asked: How can we speak about

God? A: In defending the ability of human

reason to know God; the Church is expressing

her confidence in the possibility of speaking

about him to all men and with all men, and

therefore of dialogue with other religions, with

philosophy and science, as well as with

unbelievers and atheists.

 

John Hick a professor of Religion at an

American graduate school and a respected

philosopher of religion writing in the Ency.

Britannica has this to say( if you have the

C.D. enter 'faith and reason' in the search

box):

"In the wider context of his philosophy Thomas Aquinas held that

 

human reason, without supernatural aid, can establish the existence of

 

God and the immortality of the soul; though these are also revealed,

 

for acceptance by faith, for the benefit of those who cannot or do not

 

engage in such strenuous intellectual activity. Faith, however, extends

 

beyond the findings of reason in accepting such further truths as the

 

triune nature of God and the divinity of Christ. Thomas thus

 

supported the general (though not universal) Christian view that

 

revelation supplements, rather than cancels or replaces, the findings of

 

sound philosophy." ((from Article on Christianity))

 

Some states of affairs are simple clear and checkable.

This is one of them.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Ref post 30049

 

Sri Durga-ji writes :

 

( 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..." )

 

 

Durgaji , here is the verse from Srimad Bhagwat gita you were looking

for :

 

sraddhavan labhate jnanam

tat-parah samyatendriyah

jnanam labdhva param santim

acirenadhigacchati ( BG chapter iv -verse 39)

 

 

The man who is full of faith, who is devoted to It, and who has

subdued the senses, obtains (this) 'Knowledge' ; and having

obtained 'Knowledge, ' ere long he goes to the Supreme Peace.

 

and we should a;so make it a point to read the next verse that

follows verse 39

 

ajnas casraddadhanas ca

samsayatma vinasyati

nayam loko 'sti na paro

na sukham samsayatmanah ( BGverse 40, chapter iv )

 

The ignorant, the faithless, the doubting-self goes to destruction;

there is neither this world, nor the other, nor happiness for the

doubter.

 

In seeking knowledge/wisdom, there are bound to be doubts and

questions . Sri Krishna encouraged Arjuna to ask questions and at

every step Sri Krishna did his best to clear Arjuna's doubts. That is

why the SRIMAD BHAGVAT GITA is so interesting because of this

engaging dialogue . How boring it would be if it was just

an 'annoying' monologue!

 

I would like to thank Michaelji for starting this thread - it is so

benefecial to reiterate our 'faith' in the scriptures and the Guru.

 

The sanskrit word 'shraddha' has in it all the elements of Faith.

Belief, reverance and devotion. I would add one more and that is

when we have Shraddha , we are 'empowered' - that is the

great 'shakti' in Shraddha! When we think of Shraddha, I am always

reminded of 'Ekalavya' who is an outstanding example

of 'Shraddha' ... Ekalavya, as you all know, practiced the art of

Dhanur vidya ( archery) in front of the stone idol of Dronacharya .

Ekalavya knew very well that being of the lowewr caste of a Hunter ,

Dronacharya would have never accepted Ekalavya as a disciple.

DRONACHARYA WOULD TEACH THE ART OF ARCHERY ONLY TO KSHATRIYAS .

 

Ekalavya, however , accepted Dronacharya as his manasic guru and due

to his 'shraddha' became a better archer tha even Arjuna,

Dronacharya's star pupil. Ekalavya's gurubhakti was so exemplary that

even when Dronacharya demanded EAKALAVYA'S right thumb as a guru

dakshina, Ekalavya sacrificed his right thumb at the ALTAR of Guru

bhakti. hOW CAN AN ARCHER PRACTICE ARCHERY WITHOUT HIS RIGHT THUMB?

such was Ekalavya's supreme sacrifice.

 

However, i would also like to quote another verse from Srimad Bhagvad

Gita in this context

 

tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya

upadeksyanti te jnanam

jnaninas tattva-darsinah (bg chapter iv - verse 34)

 

Know that by long prostration, by question, and service, the "wise"

who have realised the Truth will instruct you in (that) 'Knowledge. '

The verse explains the qualities that are necessary in a teacher.

 

By 'prostration' is meant surrender to the guru !

 

 

(all translations are from Swami Chinmayananda)

 

 

A 'questioning' attitude is good but it should be done in a mode

of 'humility' and not 'arrogance .

 

As chittaji has beautifully explained in his post number 30043 ,

 

( When Socrates questioned them, they were often reduced to a state of

perplexity....... <<<snip>>>>>

He said the this state of perplexity was a better state than standing

on public platforms and dispensing knowledge that they thought they

had to crowds of listeners. The state of perplexity is a state that

one who thinks he knows a lot has to pass through in his quest for

knowledge. It is not a bad thing. The true seeker is grateful for it,

and he moves ahead in his search.)

 

I would like to join Sadaji in congratulating Chitta for his various

posts on Adhyaropa etc and for investing his valuable time and

efforts in explaining them to laypeople like me.

 

One question for chittaji ? SOCRATES SAID 'DEATH IS A BLESSING ' the

75 year old Socrates was of course talking about his physical death

and the transmigration of the soul after death etc...

 

CHITTA, in Vedanta - the real 'death' occurs when 'ego' dies and then

there is the real 'birth' or shall we say 'rebirth' ? Punjanmamm! any

thoughts ?

 

Sri GURUBYO NAMAHA!

 

OM NAMO BHAGVATE VASUDEVAYA!

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Durga,

>

> You say 'this is what I have been taught',...Is that not blind

faith?

 

....

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

> this is Sraddha. .....ONS...Tony.

 

Hi Tony,

 

When I say, 'this is what I've been taught,' it

does not mean that I do not find what I have

been taught to be true.

 

It is only meant to indicate that

I consider myself to be a student

who is still learning.

 

At present I am perfectly happy not to generate,

without guidance, my own ideas about what the

teachings of Advaita/Vedanta are trying to say.

I spent thirteen years trying to formulate or

understand (without much guidance) the

teachings of various teachers of neo-advaita.

Some of whom IMO were good, and some of whom

weren't. I would say the net result of that

thirteen years was total confusion as to what

the true meaning of what the word, advaita,

actually is. And I have seen dozens of my

friends in the same situation as well.

 

If what I am now being taught did not resonate

deeply with me, then I would discard it, for not only

is that what the teachings say, it is also what my

own mind says.

 

I first heard the teachings of Advaita/Vedanta,

from a traditionally trained teacher, whose

guru is Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Those teachers

are part of a lineage which is reputed to stretch back in

an unbroken line to Shankara. At that time, I knew

nothing about lineage, tradition, what the word,

Vedanta meant, what the Upanishads were, or even

who Shankara was.

 

All I knew was that my mind recognized

words which rang true.

 

"Thank goodness!" I thought, "At last, someone who is

saying something which actually makes sense."

 

And my feelings of appreciation, gratitude,

and my own understanding have only grown from that

day to this. As far as contrasting my attitude

to one of blind belief rather than one of shraddha,

I can't really comment on that.

 

In the end, the teachings act as a pramana.

A direct means of knowledge, by which the student

comes to recognize the truth that they point out.

 

So what they show, and what one is, is not different.

 

Now you could say that sentence is an expression

of blind belief, but I wouldn't.

 

I would say that what I have seen of those

who have realized their true nature, by

listening to these teachings, who are in this

sampradaya, and what I myself have experienced

by listening to these teachings, has given me

the shraddha to continue, as I find no fault in them.

And indeed I find much pleasure, joy and happiness,

in what the teachings say. And when their subject matter

is a direct pointing to one's experience, I have found

that they do match up to my experience.

 

As I have no problem with happiness, and as I find

a deep resonance with these teachings and with my teacher,

and as my own inner guide doesn't appear to have any

problem with any of the above either, then if someone

else has a problem with it, then all I can say is,

"Thank you for your kind concern," and proceed on my way.

 

On another subject, I would like to say that if I have

offended anyone in any way by contrasting the Christian

word `belief' with the word 'shraddha' as it is used in the

teachings of Advaita/Vedanta, (according to my understanding),

I am very sorry.

 

My views on the Christian understanding of faith

are based on the teachings which were endorsed by

the Christian religion in which I was raised, as they

were explained to me at that time.

 

I do not have the time or opportunity to read all the

posts on this list, nor had I read those of Michael's

that were titled `faith,' when I wrote my post(which

seemed to get me into hot water with him). So I apologize if

what I said was at odds or not in keeping with

the topic being discussed, or disrespectful of any

member posting, or if I spoke out of turn.

 

Best wishes to all

And (as teacher of mine once said),

"May all beings be Happy" --Durga