11 responses

  1. Kula-pavana dasa
    June 17, 2009

    Maharaja, you write: “When reason serves revelation it finds its proper place as an aspect of faith, a perennial notion if there ever was one. A notion, I might add, that renders our reason most useful and beautiful, as a tool of the soul rather than something complicit in its betrayal.”

    Where exactly does the Revelation end, and where is the reason allowed to freely probe the accepted tradition, religious thought, religious practice, and their practical validity? That seems to be a very contentious area. Some will argue that whatever their guru says is Revelation and not a subject to reason. Others draw the line (often somewhat nebulous) based on the existing shastras. It seems to ma that this a very important issue to settle.

    For example, Rāmānujā has summed up that according to Mĩmāmsa (Vedic hermeneutics) in order for any Scriptural Text to be considered as authoritative it must fulfil certain conditions:
    -It must conform to reality as we experience it.
    -It must be logical and not contradict any of the other two other means of knowledge such as perception and inference.
    -The content of the text must be internally consistent.
    -The knowledge presented in the text must have a practical application.
    He also said that it is this practical application which is the true test of the Truth of Scripture.

  2. swami bv tripurari
    June 18, 2009

    Can you give us a reference for the position of Ramanuja you have cited. As it is, it appears either incorrect or stated such that it is can be readily misunderstood. For example, Ramanuja acknowledges Bhagavad-gita as an authoritative text (revelation). But the Gita speaks of that which we have no experience of, such as reincarnation, the atma, Sri Krishna’s abode (tad dhama paramam mama), etc. Thus by the above standards the Gita does not appear to be authoritative because reincarnation, etc. do not conform to reality as we presently experience it. Reincarnation, etc are something one can experience, but until one does, one has to accept them on faith.

    Furthermore, perception and inference are not always correct. Thus he must mean that revelation must conform with them when they are correct. But . . .

    Otherwise revelation is ultimately about God. Its purpose is to inspire one to realize God, which cannot be done by reason alone. Reason comes into pay in terms of reasoning how to apply revelation such that its purpose is fulfilled. We have to think about its statements and understand them such that we become inspired to apply ourselves in a transrational manner—chanting God’s name for example. It is reasonable to do so, but chanting itself is not an exercise of our reasoning but rather of our heart. This is the fulfillment of reason.

    Theology is also reason applied to revelation, reasoning as to the spirit of the text as opposed to its literal meaning, which involves understanding its purpose and thereby sorting out the relative from the absolute. In the Gaudiya tradition we say sadhu sastra guru vakhya cittete koriya aikya, not only do we have sadhu, sastra, and the words of the guru, but our heart or conscience to consult. All four should be in agreement. If they are not, you must reason them into agreement such that you can proceed enthusiastically with the transrational exercise of spiritual practice.

  3. Gaura-Vijaya
    June 18, 2009

    That is interesting. I feel that for the heart and conscience to be in agreement with the other three pramanas is difficult for many people because the current state of the heart maybe governed by one’s cultural entrappings and political stance(call it hrdaya daurbalyam or weakness of heart). Maybe the paramatma can facilitate the satisfaction of the heart if the desire to pursue spiritual life is sincere.

  4. Kula-pavana dasa
    June 18, 2009

    Maharaja, you can find the reference here: http://www.srimatham.com/
    In general, I find Sri Vaishnavas and Madhvas less dogmatic and more rational in their approach to shastra and devotional practice than Gaudiyas.

    • Gaura-Vijaya
      June 18, 2009

      i don’t agree that Sri and Madhava sampradayas are more rational and less dogmatic than Gaudiya sects in general. The link you have cited is Australian wing of Sri Vaisnavism which is definitely more liberal than the Indian branches. That way even Sri Chaitanya Sangha is liberal.

      Merely by stating Ramunuja’s propositions, the author does not help us understand how we should accept karma and reincarnation as these two concepts are not verifiable through sense perception.

  5. prajyumna
    July 23, 2009

    This was a great article. Very topical and timely. It is wonderful that the Goswamis of Vrindavan wrote amazing texts. But unless there is a live teacher who can translate the meaning so that it is pertinent for the times, then the beauty of ancient texts is never fully realized by the masses. Its great that there are people like Tripurari Swami waving the banner of Gaudia vaishnavism amidst the ‘dry spells and dry wells’ of existential vacuousness pervading in popular society.

    Tripurari Swami wrote:

    Absorbed in an everlasting rhythm, we will experience complete identification with God (unity) amidst simultaneous awareness that it is we finite souls who are attending to God (diversity).

    On college capuses these days I see many sign boards tht say ‘diversity,’ by which I assume that the students mean cultural diversity. I think that cultural diversity is important. But I think it is also wonderful to realize that Krishna is the original diversity. All forms of diversity come ultimately from Krishna. Krishna is so diverse that one can chant his one name, Krishna, over and over and over in the form of the Hare Krishna mantra and it doesn’t get old. Over and beyond that, the more one chants his name, all the diversity within God himself is revealed by chanting his holy name. His holy name appears to be like any other ordinary static name. And though it is uttered with the tongue just like any other ordinary static name, because all of God himself is contained in his name, the scriptures explain that his name is non-different from his form and his past-times. Within the one unit of His holy name is all the diversity of creation. Who can beat that? :-)

  6. jamslice
    April 27, 2011

    Byootiful. <3

    Reminds me a bit of the first part of Behold the Spirit by Alan Watts, which is what I'm reading right now. It's so great!

  7. Shashank Khattar
    April 29, 2011

    Just stumbled upon this. My faith in humans, reason and truth was just revived.

    Is there an Indian chapter? I am in Delhi.

  8. Sean Kinnevy
    July 21, 2011

    Very good!

Leave a Reply




Subscribe without commenting

Back to top
mobile desktop