Belief and faith

[Guest guest]

Namaste All Advaitins,

There are undoubtedly elements within sabda

which are suitable for rational scrutiny and by

the same token there are those which are not

and could not be scrutinised in the same sense.

They are accepted rationally and this must be

an extension of the term rational on the say so

of some one or some text that is regarded as

authoritative. Other folk with different texts

and different authorities may hold or believe

different and opposed doctrines to be true.

 

Does that mean that someone is wrong i.e.

there are matters of fact which are true in

the same sense as 'there is snow and ice

on Mount Kailas' or are there antinomies

which are undecidable as Kant would have

it. A pair of these was 'the world had a

beginning in space and time' and 'the

world had no beginning in space and time'.

Is rational truth in these cases merely the

coherence with different bodies of doctrine?

 

These are commonplace questions to which

a possible answer might be 'I'm not interested

in any of this I have shradda, I'm o.k.' Do not

be surprised though if the questioner

inwardly judges you to

be a victim of blind faith!

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Chittaranjan, Michael, Shri Madathil and others,

 

This is by way of thanks for some helpful observations.

 

First, thanks to Michael and Shri Chittaranjan for help on Heidegger

and on Aristotle and the medieval western scholastics. In

particular, I'm intrigued by the distinction of 'essence and

existence' (Shri Chittaranjan's post 30102, Jan 30).

 

To me, this is a distinction that arises only when constructing some

account of apparent objects and events, in some picture of the

world. It's only then that we need to speak of common principles or

universal essences which get manifested in a greater variety of

particular instances, each with a differentiated existence of its

own. And then of course it is conceived, as Aristotle and the

scholastics did, that a universal does not quite exist in itself,

but only through its various different instances.

 

Such work of intellectual construction is often identified as the

main task of philosophy. Hence Aristotle has often been considered

as a model philosopher, because of his great system-building work

which has been of such use to western thought. But, from an Advaita

perspective, system-building goes in quite the opposite direction to

philosophy. The proper task of philosophy is to turn back from

building pictures, by a skeptical investigation down into their

assumed foundations.

 

When thus investigating down, the word 'exist' gets to be seen quite

differently. Literally, it means to 'cause to stand out' (from

'-sist' meaning to 'cause to stand' and 'ex-' meaning 'out' or

'departed from'). So it can be interpreted in two ways.

 

One is to depict a limited 'existence' that makes an object stand

out as something in particular, different from other things. This is

the depicted existence of objects that we perceive and conceive as

pictured elements, in our constructed pictures of the world. This

depicted 'existence' must depend on the beliefs from which our

pictures are constructed.

 

The other interpretation is more fundamental. It asks for an

underlying 'existence' - which has caused differing appearances that

show it outwardly and superficially, through different ways of

seeing and describing it. That underlying existence is shared in

common by its differing appearances, which show up in our various

pictures of the world. We look for it beneath the picturing, as that

being which remains the same, quite independent of the varying

beliefs that make us picture it so differently. There 'essence' and

'existence' are the same pure being, remaining always unaffected,

beneath all affectations that appear.

 

As we look down in search of it, we have to ask beyond belief. That

searching is an act of deeper faith, in plain and simple truth,

beyond all possibility of any compromise with the least trace of

falsity.

 

In a way, this question of belief and faith is summarized by

something Shri Madathil wrote earlier (post 30079, Jan 27):

 

"Belief may be objectively directed as you conclude. But it also

implies, like faith, a subjective ground of knowing. Anything for

that matter encountered or entertained by us, internally or

externally, has that subjective ground of knowing. So, belief is not

completely or independently external."

 

Quite disgracefully, in responding to Shri Madathil, I neglected

this first observation in his message and instead quibbled with him

over a second observation about Indian and western concepts. But

now, looking back, it strikes me that his first observation may

serve as a kind of key to Advaita shraddha or non-dual faith.

 

External beliefs must all depend essentially on inner faith, but not

the other way around. Just as known objects must each one of them

depend on the knowing subject, which is independent of them all.

It's only by returning there, to an irrevocable faith in the one

subject, that non-duality is found.

 

Sorry to be so slow on the uptake here. As someone with a personally

skeptical temperament, I'm not much accustomed to considering or

discussing the subject of 'faith'.

 

Ananda