"What to put on when the sweater unravels?" - or "Where to go once the cloud is rent?"

I think that there are serious points here that I would like to address in a separate thread.

The loose thread argument is what I also call the "falling faith-domino theory." The original "domino theory" was that once Vietnam fell to Communism, then one after the other, all the other countries would tumble and soon the whole world would become Communist. So, is there any "line" that must or even can be drawn?

The Christians call this dilemma "the God of the gaps." "God" is used to explain everything in the beginning, but science (damned science!) slowly encroaches on God's territory, explaining away one after another mystery or miraculous occurrence until God's place is almost entirely circumscribed--a Deist God or a karma-kanda God, setting the world into motion and then ignoring it, giving the results of karma but without any voice of His own.

So where exactly is the line?

*****

That is one point. Another, which maybe deserves an entirely separate thread is the idea of laukika and sastriya sraddha. My idea is that what Advaita thinks is sastriya sraddha is really another level of laukika sraddha. sastriya sraddha includes a master of rational thought (dRDha yukti yAra). And of course, I want to expand the understanding of sastra somewhat.

In other words, it is a faith that is not confused with belief, but is integrated into one's being.

Faith is not about trying to put the square peg of unbelievable ideas into the round hole of reason.

*****

I liked Tillich's ideas of a "dialectic of faith", and ultimate concern.

*****
Anyway, I really have to limit myself to about an hour a day here. Of course, if I did not think that something vitally important was going on here, I would not bother at all. But a shadow looms...

I think many of us are destined to be digambara. The samskara is just too deep to be shaken off.

I liken it to the difference I often see in the community I live between our Western kids and Indian or other minority kids. We arm ourselves with books, toys, and good intent but ultimately concede that our two/five/ten/fifteen year old just cannot sit through more than a couple of bhajans and definitely not a class. Then we look across and see Indian, Chinese, or African American kids sitting there, with nary a toy, no complaints, and needing very little attention. The social and genetic makeup is just so different.

Similarly, I don't think many of us--or even most of us--can help but pull at the threads. It is what we are.

Somehow ACBSP managed to create an impression that counteracted that for many but the artificiality of that often wears off when we look outside and see, ironically, an even more literal or authoritative interpretation in other Gaudiya groups, or when the ills of his society become so prominent that one can no longer keep the disparate impressions together.

So what becomes of us thread-pullers and naked saints? Personally, and I assume this is common, I don't burn with the doubts for they pale in comparison to what I do accept wholeheartedly. ACBSP writes somewhere that a drop of devotion outweighs tons of faithlessness.

And perhaps it is the ultimate in arrogance, but as a teenager I developed faith in the idea of a God who would not demand the suspension of what I am and what I know. When I was 13 or 14, it came time for Confirmation but I was not interested, in fact, I was conscientiously opposed to the idea. Somehow the confirmation classes were held at a friend's house so I went, giving my parents' false hope. I was a jerk in the classes (Adiyen, take note!), calling out my challenges: "What about the dinosaurs?" "What about evolution?" etc.

Eventually one of my friends confronted me in a private moment, shocked that I was rejecting the Catholic church. I was equally as shocked that all my friends were not rejecting it, for there was nothing in their behavior or beliefs that made them different from atheists. My defense--and this was something I had thought (prayed?) about deeply, despite my flippant challenges--was that God knows why I cannot believe in him.

To this day, that is still me. My life pivots on that--a challenge to God, a demand, a cry of weakness, a wanting for revelation.

In the midst of the conservative/liberal debates, I wanted to add that they are both just languages, just means of communicating, defining, ordering existence but they are not in themselves equal to the self. So to with faith: some of us position ourselves "out there," in the unverifiable world of sastra or rules that we do not fully grasp; others start "in here" and work out. I think we tread the same path but are coming from different ends.

Yes, because Samskaras run deep ACBS' attempt to make everyone into brahmins was such a dismal failure and should be given up immediately for it leads only to ridicule.
The digambar allegory is poetical, but not really fitting because Shiva is not an egghead. The thing is, simple faith can be learned, but it will be very hard unless one has a lot of association with Indians of simple faith. I am also an egghead but the simple faith of my Guru-brothers and -sisters and other Indians is contagious and I do get cured from the egghead virus slowly, by their grace......

It is dhrdha shraddha yara - "Those who have firm faith."
(CC Madhya 22.65)

Whoops. Where'd that come from? Wishful thinking, I guess.

zAstra-yuktye sunipuna. It was on the other side. Still, the same point rests. dRDha-zraddhA to some extent depends on learning (zAstra) and logical thinking (yukti), which should be considered two distinct entities here (see BRS 1.2.17).

But let's clarify: Shastra means an evolving body of literature that contains the revelations given to those we admire as saints and worthies. What is the belief in shastra that Jiva here says is faith? It is faith in the core inspiration.

And Jiva says: zarvatheti tattva-vicAreNa sAdhana-vicAreNa puruSArtha-vicAreNa ca dRDha-nizcaya ity arthaH | yuktiz cAtra zAstrAnugataiva jJeyA | yuktiz ca kevalA naiva [bha.ra.si. 1.1.45] yukteH svAtantrya-niSedhAt | zrutes tu zabda-mUlatvAt iti nyAyAt [Vedanta Sutra 2.1.28] |

The word sarvathA ("in all respects") indicates that [the uttama adhikari's] deep conviction (dRDha-nizcaya) comes as a result of [using reason] to consider the sambandha (tattva), abhidheya (sAdhana), and prayojana (puruSArtha). Reason here follows the scripture. As BRS 1.1.45 says "Even a small amount of ruchi will awaken an understanding of devotional principles. Reason on its own, however, is never sufficient to lead to bhakti, because it has no foundation." This statement negates the independence of reason [in matters concerning bhakti]. This is further confirmed by the Vedanta Sutras, which say that "[Knowledge of Brahman] comes from sruti alone, because it has its basis in revelation." (commentary to BRS 1.2.17)

So, sastra here is said to be based in revelation, which is the only real way of knowing Brahman. But sastra is at best jnana, not vijnana.

Jiva also quotes this definition from the Vaishnava Tantra:

Tarka or reason means establishing what the meaning of a text is through examining its context (i.e. what precedes and what follows). Dry reasoning should be abandoned.

I don't think that what we (to whom you object, Advaita) are doing anything outside those parameters.

I get the distinct impression from all these threads that Advaita is essentially saying that we are not allowed to interpret scripture beyond what the acharyas have stated. Is this the case, that scriptural interpretations must not be valid unless we can find the same stated by an earlier teacher?

I did not say this, though it is rock safe. One must be really self realised to squeeze one's own valid interpretation out of it. I am afraid it takes more than a PhD. There is, by the way, also Guru and Sadhu before we start consulting our small brain salad.....

sadhu shastra guru vakya hrdoye koriya aikya....

This is a far cry from taking justice into our own hands and rejecting or slighting the tikakaras whenever they dont suit our purpose.



Agreed, but isnt that a sky-high level? Are you and me on that level? Let me ask specifically if you are on that level, because I dont take any risk deviating from the shastras and tikakaras at this point of my development....



Your recent utterances on this site, and unfortunately of others too, give me cause for doubt.

sravanaM mananaM nididhyAsanam.