On Friday we discussed the convergence of, and tension between, reason and faith. Harvard in particular is an interesting environment — as a leading educational institution in the world, its values are well-grounded in ideals of reason and truth. Faith — widely known to be that which we believe in, but which doesn’t often manifest itself in tangible forms of proof — can be a difficult thing to reconcile with our ideals of knowledge and truth.
How do we go about approaching what we know and what we believe?
Someone once told me that before you can move forward with what you believe, you have to hold what you believe to be true. To be honest, I somewhat disagree with this point of view. This goes back to the idea that one religion is “right” while others aren’t. For example, should faith be guided by historical accuracy? Should we try to prove which religious texts are accurate, and in effect, follow them? Should we try to prove a monotheistic or pantheistic view of the world? Should we question whether the mythology of Krishna and Arjuna and Shiva and Parvati really occurred, and should the answer influence our belief in God?
I think back to the story of Narada, a devotee who asks Vishnu to show him the truth of Vishnu’s maya. Vishnu instructs Narada to jump into a pond, from which Narada emerges as a princess named Sushila. Sushila is married and bears children, but when her father and husband break out in a bloody feud, resulting in her son’s death, she throws herself upon the funeral pyre from her grief. Narada wakes up in his previous form, but when Vishnu asks him what was the name of the child who died, Narada cannot answer.
This story tells us that the world surrounding us is maya, an illusion that we construct to perhaps assign false meaning to our lives. Hinduism teaches that it is through the goodness of our deeds and actions that we are liberated from our maya, so our current lives are certainly not useless or completely insignificant. However, using the “truths” we extract from the world (maya) around us to guide our beliefs in a higher power can be a faulty method. For all we know, we could very well be like Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy in Narnia, or like Vladimir and Estragon waiting for Godot… or like Sushila, currently stuck in a pond of ignorance, with Vishnu, symbolizing the reality of the supreme, divine, and infinite, waiting to pull us out.
Related posts:
2 Comments
I’m not sure what you are concluding about knowledge and belief: are you suggesting that we should not be concerned with what we know because we can’t know it (because of maya)? And what about beliefs? Can we only believe? Is it futile to believe (I’m not necessarily referring to God here, but rather faith in any idea)?
If knowledge is not really know-able, then why do we concern ourselves with learning? What relevance does jnana yoga have in a world where only karma and bhakti yoga seem to matter in the future? Are our current lives only relevant because of their influence on our future lives? Why should we wait (re: Godot)?
I am not sure what Divya would have to say, but here’s my take on the importance of jnana (gnan?) yog.
Karma/bhakti yog allows us to build either punya or paap, which correlates to our future. That seems to be an easy enough way to attain moksha, right? However, without the proper gnan or understanding of the mahima (glory?) of God, our actions, the surrounding world… moksha is still unattainable. It is not enough to merely do good karma or deeds, so gnan yog is that important link that helps tie the ends together and put things into perspective.
Post a Comment