namaste Nara.
First, thanks for calling me your brother; I reciprocate the fraternal relationship. This means that we can freely debate our points without each other misunderstanding the 'I' and 'You' in our conversations as personal references where they are used in examples to illustrate a point.
I appreciate you for stating your spiritual nature and position in clear terms. Like you, I too value universal love which is conducive to harmony and peaceful coexistence. For me, Parameshvara (Shiva) in the form of saguNa brahman is the role model for universal love, peace and harmony.
I try my best to not allow others to pigeonhole me, if anyone is going to do that, it must be just me. I am an atheist when it comes to personal gods, like Rama, Krishna, et al., you know, the Saguna kind. As far as the Nirguna kind, one can only be an agnostic, i.e. possessing not enough knowledge to make a firm determination one way or another. However, in a scale of complete belief in a supernatural power and complete disbelief, I am more towards the later than the former.
• As for me, I am already pierced with the belief and intuitive knowlege of Brahman--saguNa as well as nirguNa--although I am yet to realize that knowledge in sustained experience. And I know that now that the baloon has been punctured, it will take sometime for the air to drain out.
• I love, respect and value ALL Hindu personal Gods and the Hindu sects, where the sects don't seek to be exclusive, reviling other sects and Gods. I know that I am internally more devotional than spiritual; and it is my strong opinion that an atheist who can't accept personal Gods and thus miss the experience of bhakti, misses a lot in life.
• When it comes to nirguNa Brahman, I agree with you if you mean by the term agnostic that human mind cannot know the ultimate, trans-physical cause of this world. However, if you mean by agnostic that because the mind can't know, a person should remain skeptical about nirguNa Brahman, until he experientially knows it, I don't agree with you, because I believe in and value the recorded knowledge and experiences of sages and Rishis. Still, I know that until I have that knowledge in experience, I can never get to know the Absolute Truth.
As far as approach is concerned, unlike you, I am not the reconciliation kind, I am more like the challenging kind. My friend Kunjuppu is the reconciliation kind and for that I only have the utmost respect for him.
I am for reconciliation between ALL Hindu sects. When it comes to vidheshi--foreign, religions, like you, I am of the challenging kind, specially with regard to the issues of conversion, agression, terrorism and religious exclusivity, because they never seek mutual respect and peaceful co-existence.
As KAnchi ParamAchArya said about such features of those religions, "we need unity, not uniformity". If you check the Hindu Dharma Forum (
The Hindu Dharma Forums - Sanatana Dharma Discussion), you would often find me to debate strongly with such tendencies of the foreign religions.
Even more than debating the concepts and practices of videshi religions, I take strong exception towards Hindus who routinely seek to extrapolate those concepts with Hindu concepts, when we have far more loftier philosophy in our Vedic religion. (
Hindu Dharma Forums - View Single Post - Anger crisis with Jesus)
I am not aiming to convince you my brother, only to be able to persuade you to go beyond doctrine and reflect without being bound by tradition which is nothing more than accident of birth.
Nor do I aim at convincing you--pigeonhole you, as you have put it.
My belief is that tradition is more than an accident of birth for any Hindu, not just me. The yama-niyama of sampradAya--tradition, is the first step in the path to Self-Realization. The second is bhakti--devotion. Only the third is JnAna, which will automatically set in when enough chitta shuddhi is obtained by the observation of the first two steps.
This is the path given to us by Adi Shankara BhagavadpAda, Kanchi ParamAchArya, and other sages of the Advaita tradition; although I am a starkly worldly person right now, I have faith in this teaching and know intellectually and intuitively that it will guide me to Self-Realization in the long run; I am neither in a hurry nor impatient with any slow progress. After all, the air in the baloon has to pass out.
At the risk of your objection, I would also state that unless a person goes through the proper channel of yama-niyama (through traditional instructions), bhakti (through devotion, worship and surrender) and jnAna (through shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana and satsangha), it won't be possible for a person to know the ultimate cause.
dear brother, I think most vaideekas accept three pramanas, namely, prathyaksham, anumanam, and shabdham, not just prathyaksha. I do not accept the third pramana, but I suppose you do. So, at the very least we must debate within the two pramanas we both accept, i.e. prathyaksham and anumanam.
This raises an important point, which is equally applicable to the world of intellect and science. Just because you don't accept shabdha pramANa, it does not mean that we should debate only with the pratyakSha and anumAna pramANas. Let me explain:
• What are the pramANas provided by Science? Do you think Science does not provide any shabda pramANa at all?
• At the level of the original scientists who do the research and discover the facts, it is ALL only anumAna pramANa for them.
• A scientist who says that the universe is expanding, only does it in anumAna, reading the red-shifts and violet-shifts of the spectra of radiation from the stars and other remote astronomical bodies.
• A scientist who says he is looking at the atom, does not do it in pratyakSha, but only in anumAna: the atom appears like just a speck, a point of light, even with the most powerful electron microscope. All his inferences about the contents and action inside the atom, are only anumAna. The gigantic particle accelerators spanning the area of an entire town that are built in CERN, Switzerland, are after all, jaDa--inert instruments, and the human scientist who exclusively relies on them, having no power to know it otherwise, only seeks to establish his findings by anumAna--inferences.
• What about the teachings of Science through text-books in schools and colleges? What sort of pramANa are they for a layperson? Does a layperson have the means and knowledge to use the anumAna pramANa of the original scientists? Never. So,
Science is all shabda pramANa for a layperson! (I am reminded of the shabda--sound, of the voice of my Physics lecturer in college: he always shouted at the top of his voice to make a point in his lecture!)
• Therefore, any feeling/perception/view that
it is all hunky-dory with Science (which includes all worldly knowledge) where it is perfect with perfect pramANas--proofs,
whereas in religion, metaphysics and spirituality it is all figment of imagination, blind superstition and so on, which can't be accepted as knowledge,
is only like an elephant pouring sand over its head with its own trunk, or an ostrich sinking its head in sand!
•
As against the fact-finding adventures of Science, which is forever bound/destined/doomed to undergo change in the flux of successive new discoveries,
the knowledge afforded by spirituality (read Advaita) is the ultimate truth and the beauty of it is that it is not only unchanging, right from the time of the Vedas and UpaniShads, but also that it is personally verifiable (with appropriate yogyata--qualifications and adhikAra--entitlement).
Only nostalgic fidelity to pre-determined doctrine can lead one to conclusively declare one way or another based on age old texts (vedas) that somehow are valid just because a group of people simply say so.
Would you still maintain this in the light of what I have explained above?
Since, my belief, knowledge and experience is on the lines I have explained above, I don't find any need to discuss the rest of your points, such as about my statements of the nature of Reality, which are not mine, but that of our sages, are at best conjectures, and your statements based on Science are all truthful statements and only those matter.
KRShNa's statement about guNas and mAyA that the jIvas can't transcend them except by surrendering to Him is very well understood. KRShNa does not preclude a person who has faith in Him as the Parameshvara, to investigate the spiritual truths, and he would gladly give his blessings for such sAdhakas who are sincere.
All the Hindu sages right from the time of the Vedic Rishis have obtained their knowledge about the ultimate cause only through surrender to Ishvara, and that knowledge is sufficient pramANa and guidance for people like me.
eace: