Faith & Intelligence

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Gita does not mention the 'faithful' as a kind of pious men who worship Hari.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Faith is possessed by all the four kinds of people who surrender to the Lord, in varying degrees. It is that faith in God that separates these four from the other four; it is what makes one a sukritinah and not a dushkritinah.

 

Some sect's preceptors, however, use to state that sraddha (faith) is something essential to attain Hari and at the same time intelligence should be discarded. Instead of intelligence one should repeat like a parrot everything that he heard from his instructor.

Your writing just seems to be full of criticism of some personal problems and misunderstandings you had in the past, which you are now resentful of. You try to flower up your criticisms with a little Bhagavad Gita or a couple words of "shruti" thrown in, but it does not hide the anger you are trying to express.

 

Regardless, you are failing to understand the distinction between conditional and constitutional intelligence, and the resultant sraddha that is created by utilizing each. These are things people learn in the bhakta classes, thus you are most probably intentionally merging the two categories into one. Give the dog a bad name and then hang it, or so the saying goes.

 

The Gita says:

 

sraddhavan labhate jnanam

 

"A faithful man attains knowledge." Your idea that one should cultivate intelligence without sraddha is contrary to the Gita's message. Intelligence is the natural by-product of purified faith.

 

Elsewhere Krishna states the "faithful" devotee to be the highest among all.

 

sraddhavan bhajate yo mam

sa me yuktatamo matah

 

"He who worships me with great faith is considered by Me to be one who has attained the supreme union."

 

The Bhagavatam (3.25.25) states:

 

taj-josanad asv apavarga-vartmani

sraddha ratir bhaktir anukramisyati

 

"By hearing and reciting the pastimes of Sri Hari one advances on the path of liberation. Subsequently, firm faith (sraddha), attachment (rati), and devotion (bhakti) follow, in that order."

 

Sraddha is a step towards devotion, without which there can be no bhakti. For this reason the gaudiya acharyas state:

 

adau sraddha tatah sadhu sangah

 

"In the beginning one must have faith and then associate with saintly people."

 

This is the first step in advancing in bhakti. According to one's faith one will choose one's association. For example, I will choose to associate with certain sadhus, and you will choose to associate with other sadhus. Whom we choose to associate with is based on each of our faith, though this faith is still conditional and not constitutional.

 

mayy avesya mano ye mam

nitya-yukta upasate

sraddhaya parayopetas

te me yuktatama matah

 

"He whose mind is fixed on Me, always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith, is considered by Me to be most perfect."

 

[Also refer Gita 12.20]

 

We should not confuse a word to mean the same thing in different places just because it is spelled the same. Krishna uses the word sraddha throughout the Gita in various ways, sometimes indicating conditional faith and sometimes constitutional faith.

 

As far as intelligence, one must understand what are the twenty constituents of knowledge. Only then is it possible to understand the connection between faith and intelligence. Otherwise you will continue thinking they are two separate things which one must choose between.

 

In addition to this, if one looks at the other related words that Lord Krishna uses, such as asamshaya, nistha, etc., the stress put on faith is quite direct.

 

As far as the faithless people, Lord Krishna describes them as well:

 

ajnas casraddadhanas ca

samsayatma vinasyati

nayam loko 'sti na paro

na sukham samsayatmanah

 

"But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next."

 

[Maitreya]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Faith & Intelligence

 

Some sect's preceptors, however, use to state that sraddha (faith) is something essential to attain Hari and at the same time intelligence should be discarded. Instead of intelligence one should repeat like a parrot everything that he heard from his instructor. But that kind of instruction is denying sruti statements. Intelligence should never be neglected.

 

Any answer or comment on that issue?

What sect's preceptors teach that intelligence is to discarded?

 

American Heriatge Dictionary on faith:

 

faith-1)A confident belief in the truth, value,or trustworthiness of a person,idea or thing.

 

By employing intelligence rightly, that is by conducting tests of the process to try to determine if it has merit or value, faith becomes strenthened.

 

2)Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 

Ultimately our intelligence will instruct us that that which we seek is beyond our mundane intellectual grasp.Faith then becomes the connecting bridge from us to that Person.Intelligence is still there as a support for that bridge.And as a sign pointing to that bridge.

 

3)Loyalty to a person or thing;allegiance.

 

We are all starting from a place of self interest.We have been operating with a type of faith that says if I work according to my minds desire then I will be happy.Our intelligence is now showing us that we have reposed our faith in the wrong object.By grace our mind and intelligence have become interested in Krishna through the canvassing efforts of His beloved devotees.So now we are beginning to transfer that faith towards Him.

 

By learning about His character more and more,side by side with seeing the disasterous results obtained having faith in maya, this seems to be the only intelligent place to direct our faith.

 

It looks to me like intelligence and faith work together.

 

But purified intelligence will never direct faith towards itself but instead to Krishna.

 

YS MC

 

 

 

[mahak]

Four types approach Krsna, according to Krsna Himself, the miserable, the needy, the inquisitive and the wise.

 

When the misery ends by the grace of god, this group often is no longer interested.

 

When wealth comes, the needy has all the satisfaction they want, so often, forgetfulness of God again takes place.

 

The inquisitive just wants to add another angle to a long list of posers to keep the intellect exercized.

 

The wise know that forgetfulness of one's swarupa is the root cause of all suffering, therefore, only those who become wise will stay with Krsna. The others who approach Krsna will also stay, but must become wise as their lesser wants are satisfied, ie, poverty, misery, and desire for intellectual stimulus.

 

Wisdom is never discarded by a servant of the supreme Lord.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasaa

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

.....sruti.....Upanisads .......Prasna ...

This is a very unintelligent way to transcribe these words. It would mislead any reader not familiar with the shrooti (sounds) of Sanskrit.

 

If you don't have accents on your keyboard (which I dont have either) and are unable to qualify these "s" properly with the commonly accepted accent markings, it is better to render them as "sh" where appropriate. This may not be perfect but at least it is better than an "s" without the accent to show its proper phonetics.

 

(Incidentally, I continue to be amazed by many devotees who even after nearly 30 years of Association are still pronouncing "Chaitanya" as "Shaytanya" which becomes, by such pronunciation, north indian vernacular for "Satan" ! )

 

If this is too much trouble for you, then leave the language alone and honour your ideas in English or whatever rather than promoting your position by dishonouring our mother tongue or the antecedent Sanskrit.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-21-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Faith & Intelligence

 

According to sruti text the intelligence of the soul is permanent (Vedanta 2.3.26). Upanisads such as Prasna and Brhad-aranyaka clearly state that the attributes of soul are all eternal. As Hari's parts and parcels souls are eternally sat-cit-ananda entities.

 

According to Baladeva (commentary on Vedanta 2.3.26), following the same line of previous Vedanta-acaryas, it is not by contact with the mind that the soul manifests its quality of intelligence, for both being partless can be no contact between them.

 

According to Gita (17.3), faith is a by-product of mind. Therefore faith has nothing to do with intelligence.

 

Gita (7.16) states: "O best of the Bharata dynasty, there are four types of pious men who worship Me: the distressed (arttaƒ), the inquisitive (jijnasu), the seeker of wealth (artharthi) and the man of wisdom (jñani)".

 

Gita does not mention the 'faithful' as a kind of pious men who worship Hari. Gita also states that Hari gives buddhi-yoga and ksama-buddhi to those who really wants to attain Him. He gives that intelligence and preserve it lifetime after lifetime. He does not state that He gives sraddha to attain Him lifetime after lifetime.

 

Some sect's preceptors, however, use to state that sraddha (faith) is something essential to attain Hari and at the same time intelligence should be discarded. Instead of intelligence one should repeat like a parrot everything that he heard from his instructor. But that kind of instruction is denying sruti statements. Intelligence should never be neglected.

 

Therefore, we argue: "Why such people use to be so afraid that 'faith-breakers' may cause any damage to the 'inocents'? Is faith only a business? Why to preserve faith instead of to increase intelligence?"

 

Any answer or comment on that issue?

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by mahak:

.....Krsna....Krsna.....Krsna.....Krsna...... Krsna

see my above message regarding accent markings.

 

Why write "Krsna" without the accents - it is pretentious ersatz half baked scholarship - either one writes "Krsna" with the accents under "rs" and "n" or, if not available, write as "Krishna" which is more reflective of the phonetics (within the constraints of Roman script) than is "Krsna" without the accents.

 

Thank You very much.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-21-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by jndas:

[a bevy of Sanskrit quotes transliterated in a "misleading" way]

In fairness, you too are presenting the shabda in a way not consonant with its sounds (as far as can be EASILY possible within the Roman script)

 

Please see my previous comments.

 

If you leave the phonetic accents out in the cut and paste you should make the necessary adjustment with Roman characters to render the quotation more phonetic in accordance with accepted practices. Otherwise the amputated quotation just becomes an exercise in tokenism or showdown of scriptural blanks.

If the sounds of the original quotation arent that important why try to PARROT them at all in this inadequate manner? Just give us the quote in English with a citation reference where we can find the original ourselves.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Jndas: Elsewhere Krishna states the "faithful" devotee to be the highest among all.

Satyaraj: In that case the word sraddhavan may be employed in the sense of fervor, a feeling of love and affection, that is different than belief. According to Visvanatha's commentary on that sloka, that is the description of ananya-bhakti that is transcendental, and not a mere faith caused by mind.

 

Again in Bhagavatam (3.25.25) this 'firm faith' is not to be considered as a belief, but as a deep feeling such as fervor.

Jndas: Sraddha is a step towards devotion, without which there can be no bhakti. For this reason the gaudiya acharyas state:

 

adau sraddha tatah sadhu sangah - "In the beginning one must have faith and then associate with saintly people."

 

Satyaraj: That is a beautiful conclusion by Sri Caitanya Himself. According to these same Gaudiya-acaryas this kind of sraddha is not laukika, or mundane sraddha (belief), but paramarthika-sraddha, (transcendental), that is the seed of prema itself. A deep and transcendental feeling not caused by mind.

 

Jndas: Krishna uses the word sraddha throughout the Gita in various ways, sometimes indicating conditional faith and sometimes constitutional faith.

 

Satyaraj: Fully agreed; conditional faith = belief caused by mind - constitutional faith = fervor caused by love towards Hari.

 

Jndas: As far as intelligence, one must understand what are the twenty constituents of knowledge. Only then is it possible to understand the connection between faith and intelligence. Otherwise you will continue thinking they are two separate things which one must choose between.

 

Satyaraj: That's not my personal opinion. It is Baladeva's opinion: "(commentary on Vedanta 2.3.26), ...it is not by contact with the mind that the soul manifests its quality of intelligence, for both being partless can be no contact between them "

 

Jndas: As far as the faithless people, Lord Krishna describes them as well:

 

ajnas casraddadhanas ca / samsayatma vinasyati

nayam loko 'sti na paro / na sukham samsayatmanah

 

"But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next."

 

Satyaraj: According sruti sastrayonitvat - "Sastra is the origin of knowledge." First jñana and thereafter fervor (bhakti). That's the sequence mentioned in all sastras and instructed by Sri Caitanya Himself (Ramananda-samvada). So, we cannot say that Hari is discriminating the non-believers in that verse. Simple He is describing again the sequence of yoga's development.

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

[1].....In that case the word [shraddhavan] may be employed in the sense of fervor, a feeling of love and affection, that is different than belief.

 

 

[2].....First jñana and thereafter fervor (bhakti).

[1] Perhaps someone is confusing faith with belief.

 

[2] Try to practise jñana without enthusiasm and devotion (bhakti), even for a moment - is it possible?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-21-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Talasiga: This is a very unintelligent way to transcribe these words. It would mislead any reader not familiar with the shrooti (sounds) of Sanskrit.

 

Satyaraj: Dear Talasigaji. Actually the roman transliteration of Sanskrit should employ the diacritics to make the difference between the s, n, d, and so on. But we cannot employ diacritics in these forums.

 

The phonetic way to pronounce sruti may be shrooti in English, but in Portuguese it would be sruti, as Portuguese is a phonological language and not etymological like English. The 's' of Upanisad or Krsna would be a 'x' in Portuguese. We would say Crixna and Upanixad. The 's' of sastra would be 'ch', chastra.

 

Therefore we think it is better to mention the transliteration of the verse as better as we can, and any doubt may be solved by consulting the sastra. Sorry if my posts may cause you some pain.

 

[Guest guest]

Talasiga: Try to practise jñana without enthusiasm and devotion (bhakti), even for a moment - is it possible?

 

Satyaraj: Yes, it is possible. It is called dry jñana and it is a kind of duty, not different than a mandatory labor. It may cause brahmavit or not. We also have the dry bhakti, or vaidhi-bhakti. It may cause love and affection towards Hari or not.

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Sorry if my posts may cause you some pain.

I was in pain before your post. You are a good doctor for you can sense the pain.

Forgive me.

All I am saying is that if you dont have the diacritical marks it is better to render an "s" that is pronounced as "sh" as in fact "sh".

Thank you for your information about your Portuguese, but I must say these discussions

are in English and we should be cognisant of the implications of the Roman script in English (albeit the inconsistency of its application at times).

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Yes, it is possible. It is called dry jñana and it is a kind of duty, not different than a mandatory labor. It may cause brahmavit or not. We also have the dry bhakti, or vaidhi-bhakti. It may cause love and affection towards Hari or not.

Some make the driest altar

hoping the Invisible

will raise dust!

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-21-2001).]

[Gauracandra]

Personally I find this whole discussion of anglicized sanskrit to be rather silly. I like to type Krsna, but sometimes type out Krishna. Does it really matter? I don't think so. Sorry but I'm going to continue with the Krsna, no offense intended to your sensibilities.

 

Gauracandra

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

Personally I find this whole discussion of anglicized sanskrit to be rather silly. I like to type Krsna, but sometimes type out Krishna.

Its no sillier than wondering when the soul (which is not an object in space and time) "enters the body".

 

I dont care Gauracandra, I said what I had to and have moved on. Call Him "snicker snicker" or whatever you wish.

 

I must go, I must catch my fairy.

 

[animesh]

Talasiga ji,

You seem to be under impression that many people in this forum are trying to denigrate Sanskrit. But, I disagree. The spellings which are objecting to are used not only in this forum, but in many English versions of scriptures. Even the spelling "Krsna" is used by many publications. You may say that all those are trying to denigrate Sanskrit. You have written that "Krishna" is better than "Krsna". May I ask why? When one writes "Krishna", then it is quite possible for one to think that the pronunciation "ee" here is as in "muni", but in reality, it is as in "rishi". The two are different. Also, I consider usgae of "s" better than "sh" when mentioning "Krsna".

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Since 1992 I've seen at least 15 different transliteration schemes come and go on the internet. As such I don't really make a big deal about it. Now Harvard-Kyoto seems to be the best and most practical, but I don't like the 'G' for the 'n' in 'sanjaya'. It just doesn't read well. As for other systems, I've never liked the 'ee' and 'oo', that's something left over form Max Mueller and his hindoo studies. I would rather write 'srimad bhagavad gita' rather than 'shreemad bhagavad-geetaa' simply because it is easier to read.

 

Of course there are also those who prefer the 'ii' instead, like in tiirtha, but it just looks like a spelling mistake to me, and doesn't help out much at all.

 

And about Krishna, or Krsna. In certain schools of sankrit pronunciation it is 'krushna', and even to this day in Orissa they chant hare krushna hare krushna krushna krushna hare hare.

 

Now the 's' in 'sri' is another zoological wonder. Should we write 's', 'sh', 'z', 'S', 'Sh' or the ridiculous " s' " which was in vogue eight or nine years back?

 

And as far as itrans, you need a translator to figure out what is being written!

 

For me, I just stick with whatever shows up as I type. I'm not all that concerned since those who know enough to appreciate the verses can identify the letters by context. It is something like if I mispell a word in English, everyone knows what I was intending to say.

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by animesh:

May I ask why? When one writes "Krishna", then it is quite possible for one to think that the pronunciation "ee" here is as in "muni", but in reality, it is as in "rishi". The two are different. Also, I consider usgae of "s" better than "sh" when mentioning "Krsna".

Yes you are showing your inconsistency. You prefer to write Krsna (without the diacritical marks) but you have written "rishi". If you have written 'rishi", why not "Krishna" or "Krshna"? According to your preference it should be "risi" or "rsi"

 

I think that the only useful comment so far has been from Satyaraja who has pointed out the anglo-centricity of my (and the conventional) approach to the use of Roman script. Indeed this approach may still be confusing for many readers from other backgrounds who do not take the same meaning (sound) for Roman letters as applies to them in English. So I found Satyaraja's comment helpful to increasing my tolerance.

 

Nevertheless this does not exempt Animesh from the criticism of inconsistency when he or she insists that "Krsna" is preferable and then goes on to write rishi instead of risi or rsi.

 

Anyway I am getting RSI so I must stop now.

[talasiga]

Originally posted by jndas:

Since 1992 I've seen at least 15 different transliteration schemes come and go on the internet. As such I don't really make a big deal about it.....

I am not making a big deal about what scheme one chooses but more about being consistent (within reason)about the scheme one chooses.

 

I am not aware of any scheme that uses Krsna without diacritical marks. If the diacritical marks are not available, and there are many readers who will not be familiar with the correct pronounciation of the words so marked, then it is better to revert to a scheme that manages this problem without the use of diacritical marks by saying "Krishna".

 

On a personal note, as a person of Hindi-speaking background who has been interacting with English-speaking people and English books on the subject within the scope of this Audariya fellowship since 1960, I have consistently experienced that writing Krishna is more likely to obtain a more accurate rendering of the Name. As another example, in my experience, writing "shrooti" with a double "o" is also better because the phonetics of the English "u" is so variable.

 

But, if the most important thing on this forum is scoring dialectical points in discussion in which the sound of the Holy Name is only incidental, then my little comments (imperfect as they may be) may best be ignored.

 

 

[animesh]

I never said that "Krsna" is preferable. You pointed out some problems in "Krsna". So, I pointed out some problems in "Krishna". We find that there are problems in both.

 

I use both "Krishna" and "Krsna". Similarly, I use both "rishi" and "rsi".

[shvu]

 

Talasiga,

 

Since you are particular about spellings, can you explain why write Sruti as Srooti? Why the double o's?

 

Thanx

[talasiga]

Originally posted by shvu:

Since you are particular about spellings, can you explain why write Sruti as Srooti? Why the double o's?

 

1. Particularity is in the eye of the beholder. I spell english according to Queen's English BUT i would never go around trying to "correct" the spelling of American English. As long as we try to be consistent (give or take a few slips or slides and typos)in whatever scheme we follow.

 

2. Talasiga does not write "srooti". Shvu is wrong again.

 

3. Talasiga had already given brief explanation for double "o" in his last post. Did shvu miss it?

 

Actually, Satyaraja, I hope you see that I have not really strayed too much from the subject of your thread: "Faith and Intelligence". This whole diversion is ILLUSTRATIVE of the dichotomy between the two that does exist for many (although it need not)for here we have a picture of the split between the yearning for the Vigraha and a disregard for its Particularity. I am not suggesting that I am 100% right but the salient opposition to me is on the basis of "who cares, what does it matter". This is analogous to those who disregard jnana or those who dress the Dieties in torn bandages because they prefer it and it doesnt matter. It is lazy bhakti and its excellence is something Talasiga has not yet realised.

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

Yeah, I had missed it.

But can you explain how oo is better than u ?

 

Thanx

[talasiga]

Originally posted by animesh:

I never said that "Krsna" is preferable.

8 hours ago on this thread Animesh said "Also, I consider usgae of "s" better than "sh" when mentioning "Krsna".

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by shvu:

Yeah, I had missed it.

But can you explain how oo is better than u ?

 

Thanx

Ji whiz.

You are quick!

 

Only because of the phonetic variability of "u" in english viz between cut and put.

 

For instance I have been eating mung (pronounced moong) for nearly 50 yrs. I go into health food store and say, "Hiya mate, did you get my 10 kilo bag of moong"

"the whatta?"

"moong"

"mooo?oo oh.... you mean mung [as in "sung"]. Why didnt you f#$%^ say so in the first place?"

This is what happens when somebody first wrote mung like this meaning it to be pronounced moong. It has derogated into mung as in sung. But this only is a small matter because mung is not a holy name although Hari is there too.

 

Then I put the idiot box on and there is this american doco about world religions and it goes to India and we are told about Ram (as in "ham") and I go "baa baa baaladi hell, turn the damn thing off " but my wife says "cam down!"

 

So I must be going to bad now. It is two thirty in the morning in Oz.