Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet it is people's delusions and unreliable minds that came up with Advaita. How do you know that Advaita is not a delusion of your mind, of Adi Shankara's mind, of Swami Sarvapriyananda's mind, and other people's delusional minds (and I hope you don't mind me using that word since you use it in your post).
There seems to be the arrogant and unfounded assumption that the people who created/discovered/follow Advaita didn't have delusional minds, but everyone else does.
The same criticism holds for pretty much all other religious beliefs, and is why we should be careful about believing things without good evidence.
You are right. Ignorance exists as a powerful force and it is one common existence for all of us. There is no your ignorance and my ignorance unlike knowledge which one can have more or less of a subject or an object. Say of mathamatics. Mine is minuscule compared Ramanujam. Maybe you have more than him, quite possible. But can you measure your ignorance as to how much more ignorant you are than someone else?
If you think Shankara was delusional, do you have any evidence you can point to among his voluminous writings, his debates, his logic? I try to do that while studying them carefully, and i am unable to do it. I am only filled with awe. Swami Sarvapriyananda has devoted decades of his life studying them, and he is fully convinced Shankara had it right. If you find faulty logic and conclusion in his work please present them.
Another thing you may consider - what is the motive behind Shankara’s effort for producing such literature that established Advaita? There was no Nobel prize money in his time.
Do you think there are people perhaps more knowledgable than you who might have discovered his thoughts were delusional and called him a fraud by now? Why don’t you try?
You are right. Ignorance exists as a powerful force and it is one common existence for all of us. There is no your ignorance and my ignorance unlike knowledge which one can have more or less of a subject or an object. Say of mathamatics. Mine is minuscule compared Ramanujam. Maybe you have more than him, quite possible. But can you measure your ignorance as to how much more ignorant you are than someone else?
If you think Shankara was delusional, do you have any evidence you can point to among his voluminous writings, his debates, his logic? I try to do that while studying them carefully, and i am unable to do it. I am only filled with awe. Swami Sarvapriyananda has devoted decades of his life studying them, and he is fully convinced Shankara had it right. If you find faulty logic and conclusion in his work please present them.
Another thing you may consider - what is the motive behind Shankara’s effort for producing such literature that established Advaita? There was no Nobel prize money in his time.
Do you think there are people perhaps more knowledgable than you who might have discovered his thoughts were delusional and called him a fraud by now? Why don’t you try?
I have no doubt Shankara believed what he taught, but does he have any independent evidence to back put what he believed.
The fault is in trusting his mind without external evidence to verify it. And if we accept the mind can be delusional, we have to accept the the mind cannot verify itself, as it could be a delusion verifying a delusion. Does he produce falsifiable evidence to back up his claims?
Awe is a useless measure in deciding whether something is the Truth (as you have used previously with the uppercase T). If one is intellectually honest, one must accept that the Truth may be wonderful and full of awe, or might be the most horrible and depressing thing that fill one with existential dread. If I only seek that which I find wonderful and fills me with awe, I am biasing myself in pursuit of Truth.
But religion seems to eschew intellectual honesty.
I have no doubt Shankara believed what he taught, but does he have any independent evidence to back put what he believed.
The fault is in trusting his mind without external evidence to verify it. And if we accept the mind can be delusional, we have to accept the the mind cannot verify itself, as it could be a delusion verifying a delusion. Does he produce falsifiable evidence to back up his claims?
Awe is a useless measure in deciding whether something is the Truth (as you have used previously with the uppercase T). If one is intellectually honest, one must accept that the Truth may be wonderful and full of awe, or might be the most horrible and depressing thing that fill one with existential dread. If I only seek that which I find wonderful and fills me with awe, I am biasing myself in pursuit of Truth.
But religion seems to eschew intellectual honesty.
If you think he is delusional all you need to do is study and understand his writings and show evidence that he was delusional. people from all kinds of background from philosophy, science, religion have studied them, examined with care, and find his views valid, useful, and venerable. That and my own understanding of his system and works is good enough for me.
if you want to prove otherwise, then please, show your evidence.
What do you think?
This is treading on politics and you may want to take it to the politics forum.
What do I think?
I think you are avoiding the question, which indicates to me that you may just be someone who is in agreement with their RELIGIOUS philosophies. Now, the question is, are these Indians ignorant with their religious philosophies or not? Leave the politics alone. We are talking pragmatic religious believes in India and wondering if some of these are based on ignorance or not? This is what your OP is about.
If you think he is delusional all you need to do is study and understand his writings and show evidence that he was delusional. people from all kinds of background from philosophy, science, religion have studied them, examined with care, and find his views valid, useful, and venerable. That and my own understanding of his system and works is good enough for me.
if you want to prove otherwise, then please, show your evidence.
My problem with his work (I'm no expert, in fact a lot of what I know is thanks to links you have provided) is not providing evidence to back up his claims. He does not provide falsifiable evidence to back up his claims. So my problem is simple - no falsifiable evidence provided. Just bad analogies and vague poetry.
You can continue to believe whatever you want, and you should be free to do so. If believing in this wishy-washy ramble, without hard evidence to back it up, makes you feel good, then go ahead. I'm just noting the irony, hypocrisy and problems with your religious teaching, which I am also free to do.
Till recently atheism was hardly a thing. More people in the last century became atheist, including more profound thinkers. Long may the trend continue! In the UK every religion but one is shrinking (Islam being the exception), while atheism is rising.
What I will agree with, is that your beliefs are useful. Certainly they seem to give you comfort, so they are useful. That doesn't mean they are Truthful, but yes useful. The problem is the suspension of rational thinking inherent in these beliefs, is also used to justify harmful actions (not by you, but by others).
To show the fallacy, let me come up with my own version of religion.
I say, after thinking a lot, that humans are actually captives of another evil race in another universe, and what we perceive as our universe is actually the illusion created by that advanced evil race. We are plugged into an advanced computer that simulates what we perceive as this universe. That is the Truth.
Can you prove otherwise, giving evidence?
See we can all come up with fairy tales about the Truth that are difficult to be proven wrong. But it is foolish to believe any of those versions without good evidence to support them.
That described in the OP is no different, except that many more people have been taught it as Truth from a young age, and hence more people believe it.
I agree, ignorance of what is a key question. In The context of Advaita, it is about ignorance of the true nature of our self which is existence, consciousness, and freedom from want. We are not our body which is perishable and not our mind which can cause delusions and can be unreliable, subject to emotions.
This is but an assertion however, which is not being presented along with supporting evidence. It is a standard-issue assertion of religious dogma.
Ironically apart from the ascetic element that seems to locate delusion (Advaita's stand-in for Christian "sin") in the troublesome physical realm, and thus tries to assert a superior "spiritual" realm, I don't find what you're suggesting as entirely without merit. People are often lacking in self-awareness, consideration for others, empathy, or any sense of connectedness to the rest of humanity. I'd have a different diagnosis of why, and therefore what to do about it, but at least the problem domain is something we can agree upon.
And yet it is people's delusions and unreliable minds that came up with Advaita. How do you know that Advaita is not a delusion of your mind, of Adi Shankara's mind, of Swami Sarvapriyananda's mind, and other people's delusional minds (and I hope you don't mind me using that word since you use it in your post).
There seems to be the arrogant and unfounded assumption that the people who created/discovered/follow Advaita didn't have delusional minds, but everyone else does.
The same criticism holds for pretty much all other religious beliefs, and is why we should be careful about believing things without good evidence.
Lately that I've been thinking that religionists need to stop patting themselves on the back regarding how wonderful their own religion is and (as a retired educator I suggest) give their religion two separate grades -- one grade for how it affects them personally, and another grade for how it affects the society in which it exists.
Whether a person is practicing Advaita or Buddhism (or whatever), the first question that should be asked is, 'how is ____ affecting my own personal behavior'. And it might be worthwhile to ask some who associates with the religionist how they are feeling about that question (not that many of us would do that).
But next, the person practicing Advaita or Buddhism (or whatever) -- particularly if a dominant religion of a culture -- ought to ask a few societal questions:
1. is my culture at peace?
2. is my culture one of equal opportunity for all, including people of other or no religion?
3. and most importantly, does my culture do what my religion says it's supposed to do?
Honestly coming face to face with these questions can certainly be enlightening (in the non-religious sense).
When decrying ignorance, the key question is, "ignorance of what"?
I am completely ignorant about many things, such as the art of macrame or how to roast a turkey. And in those things of which I am ignorant, I do not claim knowledge. So I would say that ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, it's kind of inherently a necessary thing, unless you're omniscient.
Your quote seems to be less about ignorance than about an allegedly wrong way to understand lived experience and Advaita's assertion about a correct understanding. In this case, "ignorance" seems like a slur for that which Advaita doesn't agree with.
Buddhism was mentioned for a specific reason. Me. And that's fine.
But you're correct. Any reasonably intelligent person is knowledgeable, and perhaps even an expert is some things, and totally ignorant about other things. I remember one of the geology professors that I had back in my college years had a PhD in the geosciences and had been published numerous times. But as we learned on one field trip, he didn't have the foggiest idea on how to change a flat tire. Did that make him stupid? Not all.
A key part of the reference the other poster seemed to ignore was: "A fool who recognizes his own ignorance is thereby in fact a wise man, but a fool who considers himself wise -- that is what one really calls a fool".
I think this is simple, but enlightening: "Ignorant shares a root with the word ignore, one of those etymological connections which appear obvious once they are pointed out, yet remained overlooked by most. Both words come from the Latin ignorare (“to ignore, be ignorant of”)".
"A fool who recognizes his own ignorance is thereby in fact a wise man, but a fool who considers himself wise -- that is what one really calls a fool".
Another one to add to my list! Thanks!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
