Of Truth & Religion
Long back venerable Sharanji had commented on this post
"Didn't quite get this. 'Hold great promise' as in : in terms of something to achieve - something specific that it has failed to do so far? or as in 'lot of things in yet to be discovered'?To me, i don't think a religion needs to prove anything to anyone - if it is a true religion."
I can answer it now.
Whether a religion is true is not the most appropriate line of inquiry. For the truth, if there is such a thing is not a matter of merely following doctrine, or ritual, far less a dogma.
The quest for truth is strictly personal one, a quest where one must be willing to contemplate, to reflect.This quest also demands perseverance to explore the uncharted, and to take dead ends in stride.
Most importantly it requires the willingness to confront the superstitions of others howsoever mighty they may be, and also to confront to one's own prejudices. Neither a scripture or a guru can bequeath the truth, at best they can guide, but the enlightenment can only be earned by own toil.
A religion which acknowledges that truth is realized is better than a religion which insists that truth is revealed, and the word is infallible. This condition is individual.
There is a further aspect to consider. The progress of life requires labour, physical as well as intellectual. Therefore the quest for truth that is concealed must be reconciled with fulfillment of necessities which are manifest.Spiritual must meet material. Also it acts in itself as a presence which transcends the group, attaches a significance to the social activities which is more than the sum of economic transactions. This is a condition which affects the collective.
A religion which is able to reconcile these elements is a positive force. It is my belief that Hinduism does that and hence holds promise for the future and progress of mankind.
7 comments:
The quest for truth is strictly personal one, a quest where one must be willing to contemplate, to reflect.
Well, I think most Hindu philosophies will disagree with you; except possibly some of the followers of shankara who would emphasise the absolute necessity of contemplation etc. after purifying the mind. Most Hindus would agree that purifying the mind is a necessary and sufficient condition to ensure realization. Why, that is mostly like performing an experiment - purify your mind and you get results. The main difference with a typical experiment is : 1. Lack of concrete definitions and observable data 2. Difficulty. Now, I don't think this matters too much because whether this "experiment" yields results or not, it is worth performing.
As for no guru being able to bequeath the truth to you - again, most Hindu philosophies would disagree with you. It is said that the guru approaches the disciple ( though in the real world it might seem otherwise ) when the disciple reaches a certain level of maturity ( could be different thresholds for different people ).
As for reconciling with material progress : I think that is one of the big issues in gItA. kRShNa says that until the mind is matured to a certain extent, one doesn't reach "naiShkarmya", the state where one doesn't need to do any work. But He says that even though He doesn't need to do any work, He still continues to do so in order to set an example to the society. The world will always have an abundant supply of people who haven't reached naiShkarmya ( in fact almost all people will be like that ), and they need to work, work, work until they are able to do it skillfully and selflessly.
I am not denying that there is a lot of scripture and dogma in what I have written above. But I see a certain degree of mental strength etc. in people who follow these things seriously ( unlike our libby and liberal gumbal who categorically assert that it is impossible to purify the mind, glorify slavery to senses as His Eminence is so wont to, caricature sAdhus etc. as necessarily being mentally weak etc. ). It is my personal observation of these people that has given me a lot of faith, which used to be non-existent.
Gji,
Admirable: picking up an old thread and replying. Thanks.
i think Hinduism includes both points of view that you mention:
> A religion which acknowledges that truth is realized is better than a religion which insists that truth is revealed, and the word is infallible. This condition is individual.
I think what you meant was that in Hinduism even a person not following the revelation theory is still guaranteed realization as long as there is aspiration for truth. Correct?
As an aside, all paths of Hinduism (the astika marga_s) accept the revelation part. The Veda is 'revealed' - hence Rsis are called Mantradrastha_s - seers of the mantra rather than, say, Mantrakartarah - makers of the mantra.
I liked your pointing out the material aspect of religion. The pity is that most potrayal of Hinduism tends to be ascetic (not counting the story vis-a-vis social evils or 'superstitions'). Rarely is the "celebration of life" aspect pointed out.
sharaN ji,
Regarding vEdas being revealed, what svAmi vivEkAnanda says is that Hindus still hold onto their belief that vEdas always existed in the mind of the Lord. But then what truth is considered to be not like that? All truth is believed to be extant in the mind of the Lord, and we discover those.
I don't know about realization being "guaranteed". SRK and SV seem to say so but others?
Hi FITWji,
> But then what truth is considered to be not like that?
Absolutely. Which buttresses the point since the Veda contains the truth - rather, is the truth.
This is an interesting point because some schools will say that only certain sections of the Veda are "The Truth". eg. Arya Samaji_s, rely only on the samhita portion of the Veda and not, say, the brahmana portion.
> I don't know about realization being "guaranteed". SRK and SV seem to say so but others?
Yes. In particular, some dualistic schools do believe that not all souls are qualified for liberation (eg. the mitha-jiva-bheda doctrine of the dvaita school).
What i said was the 'mainline', most common viewpoint backed by traditional wisdom and utterances of seers (like SRK). i agree that there are viewpoint differences within the Hindu theistic framework.
Sharanji, FiTWji
First thanks for such an edifying discussion. Here is my response.
"Well ... performing."
I doubt that any Hindu philosophy exclude or make redundant contemplation, Sure emphasis may worry, but I believe that jnana, bhakthi and karma together constitute enlightenment.
"As for no guru being able.... disciple reaches a certain level of maturity ."
And how to reach maturity. Do you really think it is possible for Guru to impart knowledge without the effort of student ?
"I am not denying that ..... non-existent."
But where am I advocating slavery to senses or refuting purity ! I am just trying to emphasise the fact pursuit of knowledge or jnana yoga is essential to improvement of soul. Regarding mental strength, strength itself has to be tamed by judgement.
"As an aside,... makers of the mantra"
Yes I know that about Vedas, but I take it somewhat akin to Revealation of Kekule. :-)
"I liked .... pointed out."
Of course it is captured succintly in Purusharthas
Introduction to Hindusim (or some similar title) by Ed Vishwanathan is a great read.
Ashutosh,
Thanks for the pointer.
Post a Comment