From: ahudli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (anand hudli)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: FAITH and REASON (Re: Indra, Mithra and Varuna)
Date: 21 Nov 1992 16:23:10 -0800
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

In article <1ee8vjINN6bf@sandman.caltech.edu> bhattach@quip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>In article <1ebq7uINNs8s@sandman.caltech.edu> ahudli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (anand hudli) writes:
>>In article <1dh964INN7m3@sandman.caltech.edu> prasanth@ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
> 
>
>>>Truth is more important than (blind) faith to a Hindu. Prove
>>>your assertions. 
>
> 
>> Ever heard of the story of Shabari, in the Ramayan? Shabari was 
>> told by her guru Rishi Matang to just keep praying God and
>> He would visit her one day in the form (avatar) of Rama. She
>> did exactly that with complete "blind" faith in her guru's 
>> words and Rama did visit her ashram, in his search for Sita. 
>
>> How about the story of Dhruva?
>> Dhruva, a mere kid,  went to the forest with the purpose of 
>> getting a vision of God. Devarshi Narada met the boy and instructed 
>> him to chant the mantra, "Om Namo Bhagavate Vaasudevaaya". Dhruva
>> did exactly that with "blind" faith and devotion and the Supreme
>> Lord Vishnu appeared before him.
>>
>
>Anand,
>
>You are forgetting that Hinduism is not a unitary or monolithic
>religion in the sense some other major religions are. Blind faith
>may be a tenet of some Hindu sects, but surely not of all. For
>example I would be highly surprised if "blind faith" would be
>acceptable in the Advaita philosophy of Shankara .
>
>Hinduism accommodates within its folds a mass of diverse beliefs and
>philosophies, even some very contradictory ones. Remember that
>the unabashedly atheist and materialist philosophy of Charvaka
>("Rinang kritva ghritang pibet ... " etc) is also a valid constituent 
>of Hinduism just as sects professing blind faith are. 
>
>-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
>
>

  Yes, there  are several systems of belief in "Hinduism". Note that 
 I did not make a claim that ALL "Hindus" must hold faith more 
 important than the search for truth. Most sects of Hinduism, 
 however, do recognize the need for a Guru to initiate a person
 and show him/her the path to truth or God, according to that sect. 
 One must approach a Guru and humbly request for knowledge, truth, or
 vision of God, as the case may be. Initially, when a person approaches 
 the Guru he/she need not have any spiritual experience. BUT the person
 seeking enlightenment must AT LEAST have FAITH in the Guru, FAITH that
 the Guru will, and has the capacity to, show the path. Usually the Guru 
 also points out the authoritative scriptures/texts pertaining to his  
 philosophical system  and the disciple must believe in and have FAITH in
 those scriptures as well. Usually, the Guru shows the path to 
 enlightenment and the progress that is made by the disciple depends
 on how sincere he is in following the path. As the disciple progresses,
 he/she will find answers to puzzling questions he/she  may have had 
 before being initiated by the Guru. The answers to these questions may 
 be given by the Guru or the scriptures or be discovered by the disciple. 
 The western idea that one realizes spiritual knowledge or truth by 
 arm-chair mental speculation and reasoning is not accepted by most schools 
 of Hinduism. One must seek a Guru.      

 Is there no scope for independent thinking or spirit of inquiry in         
 Hinduism? Yes there is. AFTER following the instructions of a 
 bonafide  Guru and scriptures, and making a sincere attempt to 
 understand the truth, one may not achieve the results as promised 
 by the Guru or scriptures. In some cases, the method prescribed by the
 system may simply be too hard to follow under the present circumstances.
 For example, it is very difficult to perform elaborate religious rituals
 and sacrifices (karmakanda) exactly as prescribed by the Shastras 
 in this age.   
 
 There are at least four choices open to such a person.
 1) Re-interpret the scriptures using logical reasoning and follow the 
 resulting path. This was exactly what was done by Adi Shankara. During
 his time the purva Mimamsa or the karma-kanda doctrine of the Vedas was
 prevalent. Shankara then re-interpreted the Vedanta Sutras leading to 
 the doctrine of Advaita, based primarliy on the Jnana-kanda. 

 2) Re-interpret the scriptures based on interpretations older than the 
 one accepted by the Guru. Shankara's interpretation of the Vedanta sutras
 did not convince Ramanuja. He (Ramanuja) then gave a re-interpretation of
 the Vedanta Sutras based on earlier interpretations which differed from 
 Shankara's.  

 3) Take a radical approach by questioning the validity of the scriptures.
   One is then faced with the burden of "inventing" a new religion or 
  school of philosophy. Buddha opposed the Vedic system   and founded 
  Buddhism. 

 4) Seek a different Guru with a different system of philosophy. This 
  amounts to converting from religion/sect to another. An educated
  brahmin may give up his brahminism (or what is left of it) and take to
  a purely materialistic way of life. Here a Guru would be the  one
  who introduces him to the materialistic ways! Or perhaps, a Guru is not
  needed for adopting materialism.        

 Actually, the term "Hinduism" is misleading, because in reality there 
 is no single system of beliefs universally accepted by all so-called 
 "Hindus". One can divide the different systems into more or less three
 groups -- 1) orthodox systems, eg. Mimamsa, Vedanta, Nyaya, Vaiseshika,
 Sankhya, and Yoga, 2) heterodox systems, eg. Carvaka, Jainism, Buddhism
 and 3) cults , eg. Tantric cults (Shaktas).

 The orthodox systems, all acknowledge the authority of the Vedas and 
 Upanishads, and the heterodox systems are basically anti-vedic. The 
 cults also do not acknowledge the authority of the Vedas. An overwhelming
 majority of orthodox Hindus belong to the Vedanta Schools, the followers 
 of other orthodox systems being  few in number. Among the schools of
 the Vedanta the chief ones are the Advaita of Shankara, the Vishishtadvaita of
 Ramanuja and the Dvaita of Madhva. These three schools take it as an AXIOM
 the unquestionable authority of the Vedas and Upanishads, especially the 
 Upanishads. The celebrated Bhagavad Gita is understood to contain the wisdom
 of the Upanishads.  If one doubts the validity of the Vedopanishads 
 or the Gita, one can no longer claim to be a follower of Vedanta. There are
 differences among the schools of Vedanta, but the argument is always regarding 
 the different interpretations of the Vedanta Sutras and not the validity of the
 Vedas and Upanishads themselves.       

 There are several differences even among the orthodox systems. See for example
  "A Source Book in Indian Philosophy" by Radhakrishnan and Moore, Princeton Univ.
  Press, 1957. 

 Since, as was pointed out, Hinduism has several mutually contradicting systems
 within its realm, there are not many statements one can make regarding 
 all Hindus. Needless to say, a discussion between two firm believers of two 
 different, or worse, opposing systems could degenerate into endless 
 wrangling. 

 Anand