Quoting for authority? Pairs of opposites, maybe?

[Guest guest]

I do wonder if needing a teacher/not needing a teacher is one of

those pairs of opposites which, if one takes one side or the other,

one will never convert those on the other side! May be one of those

things where opinion will always rule. If one believes one needs a

teacher, that one can't conceive of having no teacher. If one

believes one doesn't need a teacher, that realization can come from

other means, maybe that one can't conceived of needing a teacher.

Where is there an authority which can say one side is right and the

other wrong? If the person on the " need a teacher " pole quotes

scripture or a sage as the source of the authority, then does that

negate realization by one who has no teacher? Would a person from

the " needs a teacher " pole never " attain " realization if that

person's teacher dies? What then? If the person doesn't find another

teacher before dying, would that person have no chance of

realization? The person had a teacher for a time and then did not

have a teacher. So would the person " attain " realization and

not " attain " realization.

 

It just seems too absolute a statement to say " One needs a teacher "

or " One doesn't need a teacher " . After all, " one " , the jiva I think

it's called, is apparently Brahman all along pretending to be human.

I could question this further and find all sorts of loop holes in

absolutistic statements. But it seems to be the same with everything.

Questioning any doctrine or belief very soon ends in all sorts of

paradoxes and doubt. Doubt's a good thing no doubt?

 

Trying to be fundamentalist about these beliefs and doctrines seems

to somehow trivialize them. I have a tentative belief, for lack of a

better word, in karma. But it too, when questioned deeply, starts to

fall apart at the intellectual level. It is a belief, I believe, and

not necessarily and absolute fact. It may be taught as an absolute

fact but it can't, in every case, be proved. So I just wonder if all

these doctrines and beliefs may be there as support structures,

guidelines which may best not be taken completely literally? All

above are one guy's opinions only!!! Always happy for rebuttals,

corrections, input from both sides of the pair of opposites. I want

to be somewhere in the middle. Hope what I said is not offensive,

Best wishes, Steve.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " otnac6 " <otnac6 wrote:

 

> Questioning any doctrine or belief very soon ends in all sorts of

> paradoxes and doubt. Doubt's a good thing no doubt?

>

> Trying to be fundamentalist about these beliefs and doctrines seems

> to somehow trivialize them. I have a tentative belief, for lack of a

> better word, in karma. But it too, when questioned deeply, starts to

> fall apart at the intellectual level. It is a belief, I believe, and

> not necessarily and absolute fact. It may be taught as an absolute

> fact but it can't, in every case, be proved. So I just wonder if all

> these doctrines and beliefs may be there as support structures,

> guidelines which may best not be taken completely literally?

 

Namaste Steve,

 

There are two things I would like to address in

your post. If you are asking if the teachings

of Vedanta (to which this list is dedicated)

call 'doubt' a good thing, they do and they don't.

 

Voicing doubts, for the purpose of clearing them, is

absolutely recommended. If one has a doubt about

what the teacher or teaching is saying, if one

is not clear on a certain point, then one needs

to question the teacher until the doubt is cleared

up.

 

This is often referred to as 'shaking the post'

That is, when you drive a post into the ground,

you want it to be firm, and not wobbling. So,

you plant the post in the ground, and you fill in

earth around it. Then you shake the post to see

if it is firm and steady in the ground. And you may

need to fill in more earth around it until it is

absolutely firm and steady. You keep on shaking the

post and filling in the earth until the post does

not move anymore.

 

So that is the purpose of clearing doubts according

to the teachings of Vedanta, in order that one has what

is called 'jnana nishta' absolute rootedness in

self-knowledge. No doubts left about the nature of

reality, which is in fact your nature.

 

What is not recommended is doubting endlessly, as in

arguing. If you don't accept the teachings in the

first place, if you don't think they will work as

a means of self-knowledge, then in fact, they won't,

because your mind is not available for them to

work in that way.

 

There is something which is considered to

be one of 'qualifications' for gaining self-knowledge

through the teachings of Vedanta. In fact, I

understand that it is actually considered to

be the most important of all of the qualifications,

and it is called 'shraddha' which is loosely translated

as 'faith,' but perhaps better translated as 'faith

pending understanding.'

 

There is a famous scriptural verse which translated

says, " The one who has shraddha gains knowledge.'

 

But this is not 'blind faith.' If the teacher holds

up a flower and says, 'This is a skyscraper,' one would

not be expected to stay with such a teacher.

 

But if the teacher seems wise. If what he/or she

says seems true. If you feel you can understand it.

If you feel that the teachings in the hands of this

teacher will lead you to knowledge, then you have

'faith pending understanding.' Then you ask questions,

with respect, to clear any doubts which you might have.

 

As far as accepting karma or not, it is my understanding

that whether it exists or not, is not available for our

direct knowing, unlike self-knowledge, which is available

to be directly known.

 

But the scriptures tell about it, and to me it makes perfect

sense. But again, it is not something which is available

for our direct knowledge. Even so, we can ask questions

about it, and find answers in the scriptures, and from the

teacher, but we can't 'prove' it by directly knowing. We

have to accept it or not.

 

My own teacher says, " Why would you not accept it, if the

same scriptures which are the means of knowledge also

speak of it? " It does seem to make sense of those events

in the jagat (world), the reasons for which are not available

for our direct perception. When we can see a beautiful all

around us, why would we not accept that that order extends

beyond that which is available for our direct sense perception?

 

So that is my understanding on those two points.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Durga! I see your points! Thanks for the qualification

re two kinds of doubt! Best wishes, Steve

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Get the free toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware

protection.

http://new.toolbar./toolbar/features/norton/index.php