Faith & Intelligence

[shvu]

 

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

Good point, but oo doesn't seem to be a complete solution for it can be pronounced as in hoover, hooper, google, etc [which is how I am inclined to read it].

 

Transliterating sanskrit into english seems to be a complex problem. Perhaps this is why, there exist so many different transliteration schemes.

 

Cheers

 

[Maitreya]

oà namo bhagavate väsudeväya

janmädy asya yato ’nvayäd itarataç cärtheñv abhijïaù svaräö

tene brahma hådä ya ädi-kavaye muhyanti yat sürayaù

tejo-väri-mådäà yathä vinimayo yatra tri-sargo ’måñä

dhämnä svena sadä nirasta-kuhakaà satyaà paraà dhémahi

 

Why don't we just agree the above is now the standard.Just kidding of course.I can't read it.

 

I have found it interesting how this nit- picking has interupted the flow of the topic which was Faith and Intelligence.

 

Is there a lesson here?

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

To be honest, I try to type words the way they will be typed by people in a search engine. So even if it may not be correct, I will usually follow the common way the words are written. For example, I would write avatar instead of avatara, since very few people will do a search for 'avatara' but many would do a search for 'avatar'.

 

Anyway, back to that lesson we were supposed to learn...

[Guest guest]

Let's get back to the original point:

 

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 "

 

Any other opinion?

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

I have found it interesting how this nit- picking has interupted the flow of the topic which was Faith and Intelligence.

 

Is there a lesson here?

 

 

Yes,

Faith in Guru

must be coupled with the Intelligence

that you can only choose a Guru

who has chosen you.

 

Talasiga alias Nitwit

[kailasa]

Development of spiritual life this becoming faith.

 

For example simple faith it -sraddha, Steady faith it nistha, faith charged by spiritual emotions it bhava, The spiritual mood is race, spiritual taste it ruci, mature spiritual life It sthai-bhava, and the top of love to the God is prema.

 

It is intellect an exterior form, but faith it is essence, therefore to divide them it is not correct.

 

[animesh]

I have still to see why Krishna is better than Krsna. It is quite possible to pronounce 'Krishna' as 'Kryshna'. Also, it is quite natural to think that 'sh' should be pronounced as "talavya sh' instead of 'murdhanya' which is correct. Of course, one may claim that 's' can be pronounced as 'dantya sa' instead of 'murdhanya'. So, there is problem with 'Krsna' also. But that does not mean that 'Krishna' is better.

 

I mostly (though not always) write 'Krsna' because I have seen it being used in many books. May be somebody else has seen 'Krishna' being used in most of books. I am not trying to say that just because many books use a spelling, it must be correct. But, unless, I find an explanation as to why it is worse than an alternate spelling, I don't think I should stop using it.

[animesh]

jnda ji,

Sorry for taking the thread further off-topic , but I just wanted to ask one question.

When I hear the mantra

"Hare Krsna hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna hare hare

Hare Rama hare Rama, Rama Rama hare hare",

 

then I find that 'Rama' is pronounced as 'Raamaa'. Isn't 'Raam' the correct pronunciation? The same question can be asked regarding the pronunciation of 'Krsna'.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Sorry for taking the thread further off-topic , but I just wanted to ask one question.

 

When I hear the mantra

 

"Hare Krsna hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna hare hare

Hare Rama hare Rama, Rama Rama hare hare",

 

then I find that 'Rama' is pronounced as 'Raamaa'. Isn't 'Raam' the correct pronunciation? The same question can be asked regarding the pronunciation of 'Krsna'.

 

Rama should be 'Raama' with a short 'a' at the end. But in singing there are also certain rules by which one may adjust sounds for particular moods and for particular timing. I am not suggesting that everyone who sings 'raamaa' is following this, but that there are circumstances when it may be done. But in speaking, it should be 'raama' and 'krishna', for 'krishnaa' is a name of draupadi and several other female personalities.

 

Of course this is external, and the faith in one's heart is primary over the pronunciation. There is a story in the Puranas of a man who was passing stool in a field when a boar started chasing him with his sharp tusks. The man came to a cliff and had no where to go, so he jumped off and yelled 'haraam' which is a bad word in some non-sanskrit languages. The man fell to his death. But there was a rishi meditating in a cave of that cliff, who by his mystic vision saw the man attain a four armed form and go to Vaikuntha. He was very angry and met with Brahma to complain. He said, "I have been doing tapas and meditation for thousands of years, and I am still in this cave, but this unholy man has yelled some obscentity while falling to his death and he has attained Vaikuntha! This is injustice."

 

At that time Narada arrived and explained how the syllable 'raam' was spiritual sound, and it is heard by Sri Ramachandra, whereas the syllable 'ha' was material sound vibration, and was ignored by the Lord. Thus to the Lord's ears he only heard the man calling 'raam' at the time of death. Ramachandra had taken a vow that whoever calls His name at the time of death, He will come and deliver that person from the material existence. Thus to uphold his vow he came to deliver this man who had unknowingly called his name in an indirect manner.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-23-2001).]

[shvu]

SD,

 

Faith comes into the picture when something cannot be perceived with the aid of intellect. A good example is afterlife. No one can say what happens after death...not unless he has died, gone out to see what happens and comes back to tell people what he saw.

 

This cannot be determined intellectually, for each person based on his background, intellect, etc will draw different inferences. For example, sometime back Maitreya once told me that he sees divine power everywhere. I on the other hand, see no such thing anywhere. Some other person will see things some other way. In general atIndriya [beyond senses] concepts cannnot be perceived thru intellect.

 

This is where faith comes in, where we have a religious explanation which is supposed to tbe the word of God. Why? Because that is the only reliable source, from which one can know about such beyond_the_intellect concepts. Consequently, the Indians stated that the Vedas were the word of God, the Jews stated that the OT was the word of God and so on. That has been the trend.

 

It is wrt atIndriya concepts only that Agama overrides pratyaksha and anumAna. But with everything else, pratyaksha is primary.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-23-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by jndas:

There is a story in the Puranas of a man who was passing stool in a field when a boar started chasing him with his sharp tusks. The man came to a cliff and had no where to go, so he jumped off and yelled 'haraam' which is a bad word in some non-sanskrit languages. The man fell to his death. But there was a rishi meditating in a cave of that cliff, who by his mystic vision saw the man attain a four armed form and go to Vaikuntha. He was very angry and met with Brahma to complain. He said, "I have been doing tapas and meditation for thousands of years, and I am still in this cave, but this unholy man has yelled some obscentity while falling to his death and he has attained Vaikuntha! This is injustice."

 

At that time Narada arrived and explained how the syllable 'raam' was spiritual sound, and it is heard by Sri Ramachandra, whereas the syllable 'ha' was material sound vibration, and was ignored by the Lord. Thus to the Lord's ears he only heard the man calling 'raam' at the time of death. Ramachandra had taken a vow that whoever calls His name at the time of death, He will come and deliver that person from the material existence. Thus to uphold his vow he came to deliver this man who had unknowingly called his name in an indirect manner.

 

 

Talasiga fully agrees with the proposition that "the faith in one's heart is primary over the pronunciation". Unfortunately the story posted by jndas, which is supposed to demonstrate this, does the CONTRARY !

 

The story implies that, at the time of death, if you accidentally or incidentally make any sound which happens to reflect the correct pronunciation of a Divine Name, then you will be delivered EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOVE, FAITH, DEVOTION OR THOUGHT OF GOD !

 

This is BIZARRE.

 

With supporting stories like this who needs atheists? I think I'll e-mail shvu - maybe we can go to a movie or something......

 

[Maitreya]

Originally posted by talasiga:

Talasiga fully agrees with the proposition that "the faith in one's heart is primary over the pronunciation". Unfortunately the story posted by jndas, which is supposed to demonstrate this, does the CONTRARY !

 

The story implies that, at the time of death, if you accidentally or incidentally make any sound which happens to reflect the correct pronunciation of a Divine Name, then you will be delivered EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOVE, FAITH, DEVOTION OR THOUGHT OF GOD !

 

This is BIZARRE.

 

With supporting stories like this who needs atheists? I think I'll e-mail shvu - maybe we can go to a movie or something......

Not so bizarre talasiga.I believe the story illusrtates a type of namabhasa called sanketa, of which there are two kinds.

 

This is discussed in Harinama Cintamani.

 

The power of the name

Ain't no game.

 

Contains power within

To save from sin.

 

You see

This namabhasa

Is one lucky rasa.

 

So

At the time of death

With one's last breath,

 

Somehow or other

Even calling brother

 

Chant the name

Chant the name

Chant the name

 

 

[Guest guest]

Talasiga: The story implies that, at the time of death, if you accidentally or incidentally make any sound which happens to reflect the correct pronunciation of a Divine Name, then you will be delivered EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOVE, FAITH, DEVOTION OR THOUGHT OF GOD !

 

Satyaraja: There is also the example of Ajamila. He had no love, faith, devotion, he was not doing sadhana-bhakti while he was pronouncing the name of his son in the moment of his near-death experience. In spite of this, the four syllables of Narayana's name has came to rescue him in their personified forms of Visnu-duttas.

 

Therefore, once more it is proved that faith is not the cause of deliverance.

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Not so bizarre talasiga.I believe the story illusrtates a type of namabhasa called sanketa, of which there are two kinds.

 

Agreed ! The story is not bizarre if its supporting the power of the Holy Name per se because it illustrates the power of even an incidental (or accidental) correct pronunciation of a Divine Name.

 

But it is bizarre for jndas to use the story to support the proposition that faith and devotion has primacy over pronunciation. The story OBVIOUSLY doesnt do that and THAT is the point I am making.

 

Thank you very much.

 

(additional/editional note for Satyaraja: Yes agreed with you too. I didnt say the story in itself was wrong but, rather it is bizarre as a "supporting story" for the the proposition that faith has primacy over pronunciation.

Any way I have already e-mailed shvu.

Satyaraja also come with us to the movie )

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-25-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

But it is bizarre for jndas to use the story to support the proposition that faith and devotion has primacy over pronunciation. The story OBVIOUSLY doesnt do that and THAT is the point I am making.

That was not the point of my mentioning the story. Perhaps the failure to create a new paragraph is what led you to believe so. The purpose of the story is self evident in the story itself. Those who wish to see value in it will. Those who wish to find mistakes can find many.

 

[animesh]

In the story posted by jndas ji, the person does not do correct pronunciation of the name of Lord Rama. I would not say that he did wrong pronunciation. In fact, he did not want to call the name of Lord Rama. He used a word which is not considered as good, but the end of this word sounded like "Rama".

 

I do not think that the authors of Puranas wanted readers to think that the stories written in them had really happened. Very often stories are told to teach some morale. It is not the intention of the story teller to expect his listeners to think that the incidents mentioned in the story really took place. The intention is just to teach the morale. Consider the stories in Panctantra. Do we really think that they explain real life incidents?

But it also does not mean that all the stories must be fictitious. In any Purana, one person tells some story. Some character in that story tells another story. Sometimes the chain is quite long. It is possible that the incidents mentioned really happened upto a certain link in the chain. The stories written after than link are meant for us to learn something.

 

Also, many verses seem to have been written for poetic beauty. Very often poets write things which they do not mean to be taken literally. In poetries of Kalidasa, he has picturised somebody talking to clouds, wind etc. Did Kalidasa really want the readers to think that it is possible to talk to cloud and wind? No. He wrote these things to explain somebody's feelings. When Kalidasa wrote things to add poetic beauty in his writings and not to be taken literally, why can't it be true with the authors of ancient scriptures? Modern day poets also do this.