05-26-2005, 07:47 PM
Dear Pulikeshi,
You bring up a good point -- (blind) belief versus contemplation. But I beg to argue that you misapply it here:
Of course, the acquisition of jnana involves sravana (hearing, reading), manana (contemplation) and nididhyasa (practical application in one's life). Blind "belief" is in the mode of Ignorance, i.e. acceptance of an idea without having investigated it to the best of one's ability. A casual seeker may be taken in by fancy word-jugglery, soothing cliches, etc. Or blind belief can be in the mode of Passion -- motivated by some personal egoic identification with a sect/school/community, etc. But belief in the mode of Goodness is quite alright. In fact, it is a precursor to nididhyasa. A little bit of shraddha is a precursor to nididhyasa, which then should ideally reinforce it to yield nishtha (conviction), by way of knowledge gained experientially. If it doesn't (given sufficient time), then we must re-examine our axioms and start over.
So it doesn't make sense to say "I only contemplate, but have no opinions (yet)", as if that is a virtue in itself. And you have quoted those verses a little out of context. Yes, as I indicated, blind belief in the modes of Passion or Ignorance can lead to ass-like fanaticism, but that does not mean that "belief" itself is somehow premature at any stage. If the above state of belief-lessness persists, then one can only assume that the subject is a dillitante spiritualist. We should at least bark up the wrong tree from time to time! The problem arises when we react to criticism in a passionate, egoic fashion. But if our sight is on Truth, then we would be thankful for well-meaning criticism, and make the required adjustment.
So in spirtual life, we start with a bare minimum of sambandha-jnana, then leading to abhidheya and prayojana. That basic sambandha-jnana, serving as the psycho-spiritual guideline for sadhana is what I have been speaking about here. <i>Sambandha-jnana gives the sadhaka an idea of the meaning of, and relationships between, purusha, prakriti, kaala, karma, jiva, etc. Now unless you're an empiricist, you won't deny the importance of this basic theory.</i>
So again, while lively debate may be "unsettling" to some, it should not induce one to avoid it altogether, because that mentality leads to the slippery slope of relativism. As long as the argument is supported by authoritative evidence, it can be enlightening. For the 2 quotes (out of context) which you have supplied, I can provide 50 Vedic quotes stressing the importance of conviction. My point is, <i>spiritual science is way more precise and discriminating than the simplistic theory you're suggesting</i>...which happens to be your own "belief". "We should not have opinions" is also an opinion onlee.
Its also interesting to note how many members here would like to define "Hinduism" to be <i>as different as possible from Islam/Christianity</i>. Now clearly, Churchianity and Islamism have become what they are because of a lack of (or withering away of) this discriminating, psycho-spiritual understanding of spiritual life, which is like walking on the razor's edge (kshurasya dhaara). But the Vedic literatuer and parampara provides us with lots of good uunderstanding of this aspect of spiritual life. THAT is the main difference that explains the deviant socio-political behaviour of these two communities (Xians, Muslims). Instead of seeing it this way, some here would rather express their disgust at Evangelist/Islamist behaviour by twisting Vedanta out of shape just to be <i>superficially</i> different from these "others". That is a disservice to Vedanta. JMT.
You bring up a good point -- (blind) belief versus contemplation. But I beg to argue that you misapply it here:
Of course, the acquisition of jnana involves sravana (hearing, reading), manana (contemplation) and nididhyasa (practical application in one's life). Blind "belief" is in the mode of Ignorance, i.e. acceptance of an idea without having investigated it to the best of one's ability. A casual seeker may be taken in by fancy word-jugglery, soothing cliches, etc. Or blind belief can be in the mode of Passion -- motivated by some personal egoic identification with a sect/school/community, etc. But belief in the mode of Goodness is quite alright. In fact, it is a precursor to nididhyasa. A little bit of shraddha is a precursor to nididhyasa, which then should ideally reinforce it to yield nishtha (conviction), by way of knowledge gained experientially. If it doesn't (given sufficient time), then we must re-examine our axioms and start over.
So it doesn't make sense to say "I only contemplate, but have no opinions (yet)", as if that is a virtue in itself. And you have quoted those verses a little out of context. Yes, as I indicated, blind belief in the modes of Passion or Ignorance can lead to ass-like fanaticism, but that does not mean that "belief" itself is somehow premature at any stage. If the above state of belief-lessness persists, then one can only assume that the subject is a dillitante spiritualist. We should at least bark up the wrong tree from time to time! The problem arises when we react to criticism in a passionate, egoic fashion. But if our sight is on Truth, then we would be thankful for well-meaning criticism, and make the required adjustment.
So in spirtual life, we start with a bare minimum of sambandha-jnana, then leading to abhidheya and prayojana. That basic sambandha-jnana, serving as the psycho-spiritual guideline for sadhana is what I have been speaking about here. <i>Sambandha-jnana gives the sadhaka an idea of the meaning of, and relationships between, purusha, prakriti, kaala, karma, jiva, etc. Now unless you're an empiricist, you won't deny the importance of this basic theory.</i>
So again, while lively debate may be "unsettling" to some, it should not induce one to avoid it altogether, because that mentality leads to the slippery slope of relativism. As long as the argument is supported by authoritative evidence, it can be enlightening. For the 2 quotes (out of context) which you have supplied, I can provide 50 Vedic quotes stressing the importance of conviction. My point is, <i>spiritual science is way more precise and discriminating than the simplistic theory you're suggesting</i>...which happens to be your own "belief". "We should not have opinions" is also an opinion onlee.
Its also interesting to note how many members here would like to define "Hinduism" to be <i>as different as possible from Islam/Christianity</i>. Now clearly, Churchianity and Islamism have become what they are because of a lack of (or withering away of) this discriminating, psycho-spiritual understanding of spiritual life, which is like walking on the razor's edge (kshurasya dhaara). But the Vedic literatuer and parampara provides us with lots of good uunderstanding of this aspect of spiritual life. THAT is the main difference that explains the deviant socio-political behaviour of these two communities (Xians, Muslims). Instead of seeing it this way, some here would rather express their disgust at Evangelist/Islamist behaviour by twisting Vedanta out of shape just to be <i>superficially</i> different from these "others". That is a disservice to Vedanta. JMT.