$$$ The response of the believers is experiential and
active demanding commitment and a transformation of themselves
and the world in which they live. It is an experience of God present
and active in them. Their understanding is not merely rational
but experiential, which involves imagination, emotion, reason,
intuition, supra-rational perception.
active demanding commitment and a transformation of themselves
and the world in which they live. It is an experience of God present
and active in them. Their understanding is not merely rational
but experiential, which involves imagination, emotion, reason,
intuition, supra-rational perception.
$$$ Meister Eckhart: The Theosophical Society had a major influence on Hindu reform movements.[54][i] A major proponent of this "neo-Hinduism", also called "neo-Vedanta",[60] was Vivekananda[61][62] (1863–1902) who popularised his modernised interpretation[63] of Advaita Vedanta in the 19th and early 20th century in both India and the west,[62] emphasising anubhava ("personal experience"[64]) over scriptural authority.[64] Vivekanda's teachings have been compared to Eckhart's teachings.[65][66]
In the 20th century, Eckhart's thoughts were also compared to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta by Rudolf Otto in his Mysticism East and West.[67] According to King, the aim of this work was to redeem Eckhart's mysticism in Protestant circles,[68] attempting "to establish the superiority of the German mysticism of Eckhart over the Indian mysticism of Sankara".[5
$$$ The word Upanishad is usually explained by Indian writers as rahasyam, a secret like Auquetil's secretum tegendum
$$$ Isopanisad: Yas tu sarvani bhutani atmany evanupasyati
Sarvabhutesu catmanam tato na vijugupsate
He who sees all creatures in himself, and himself in all creatures, no longer remains concealed.
His Truth is revealed in him when he comprehends Truth in others. And we known that in such a case we are ready for the utmost self sacrifice through abundance of love. (Tagore: in his preface to Radhakrishnan's Philosophy of the Upanishads).
The Upanishads are not associated with any particular religion. Although their symbolical expressions might not be fully understood today, they have the breadth of a universal soil that can supply with living sap all religions which have any Spiritual (capitalization mine) ideal hidden at their core. This has been possible because the Upanisads are based not upon theological reasoning, but on experience of spiritual life. (Tagore, idib.: And therefore, bunty's inference is that they are of immense hermeneutical (the mystical traditions of Eckhart and Bohme and the hermeneutical traditions of Schleiermacher and Harnack are of great bearing here) significance for not just Indian, but world Christologies.)
Different creeds may find their sustenance from them, but can never set sectarian boundaries round them! It has been said by some that the element of personality has altogether been ignored in the Brahma of the Upanisads, and thus our own personality, according to them, finds no response in the Infinite Truth. But then, what is the meaning of the exclamation: "Vedahametam purusam mahantam. I have known him who is the supreme person." Did not the sage who pronounced it at the same time proclaim that we are all Amrtasya putra, the sons of the Immortal? Elsewhere it has been declared: tam vedyam purusam veda yatha ma vo mrtyuh parivyathah. Know him, the Person who only is to be known, so that death may not grieve thee. The meaning is obvious, we are afraid of death, because we are afraid of the absolute cessation of our personality.
The Indian spiritual thought has never been opposed to the miraculous or the magical, and therefore, offers not resistance, but profound support for the belief in resurrection.
(Reference and read the whole of Tagore's preface here.)
The Upanisads had not set theory of philosophy or dogmatic scheme of theology to propound. ...The Upanisads have the consistency of intuition rather than of logic....The earliest Upanisads are Aitareya, the Kausitaki, the Tattiriya, the Chandogya, the Brhadaranyaka, and parts of the kena.
But the collection (of Vedas), because it was made chiefly for ritualistic purposes, is incomplete and therefore fails to give a full insight into the character of the thoughts and beliefs that existed then. - Mysore Hiriyanna
The Puranas contain the truth dressed up in myths and stories … The hard task of interesting the multitude in metaphysics is achieved in India.
When the Indian civilization is called a Brahmanical one, it only means that it's main character and dominating motives are are shaped by its philosophical thinkers and religious minds, though these are not all of Brahmin birth.
Reference the 1st chapter of his philosophy
Religion in India is not dogmatic. It is a rational synthesis which goes on gathering into itself new conceptions as philosophy progresses.
Whenever it tended to crystallise itself in a fixed creed, there were set up spiritual revivals and philosophic reactions which threw beliefs into the crucible of criticism, vindicated the true and combated the false. Again and again we shall observe, how when traditionally accepted beliefs become inadequate, nay false, on account of changed times, and the age grows out of patience with them, the insight of a new teacher, a Buddha or a Mahavira, a Vyasa or a Sankara supervenes, stirring the depths of spiritual life. the Indian mind has been traditionally exercised over the nature of Godhead, the end of life and the relation of the individual to the universal soul. On account of the close connection between theory and practice, doctrine and life, a philosophy which could not stand the test of life, not in the pragmatistic but the larger sense of the term, had no chance of survival. Every doctrine is turned into a passionate conviction, stirring the heart of man and quickening his breath.
Reference and read Radhakrishnan's Introduction chapter to his Indian Philosophy here
The supremacy of religion and of social tradition in life does not hamper the free pursuit of philosophy. It is a strange paradox, and yet nothing more than the obvious truth that while the social life of the individual is bound by the rigors of caste, he is free to roam in the matter of opinion.
Reason freely questions and criticises the creeds in which men are born. The why the heretic, the sceptic, the unbeliever, the rationalist and the free thinker, the materialist and the hedonist all flourish in the soil of India. The Mahabharata says: "There is no muni who has not an opinion of his own."
In India the interest of philosophy is in the self of man. In India "Atmanam viddhi," know the self sums up the law and the prohets. Within man is the spirit that is the centre of everything. Psychology and ethics are the basal sciences. The life of mind is depicted in all its mobile variety and subtle play of light and shade. Indian psychology realised the value of concentration and looked upon it as the means for the perception of the truth. It believed that there were no ranges of life or mind which could not be reached by a methodical training of will and knowledge. It recognised the close connection of mind and body. The psychic experiences, such as telepathy and clairvoyance, were considered to be neither abnormal nor miraculous.
If we ask the reason why there is avidya, or maya, bringing about a fall from vidya or from being, the question cannot be answered. (Paul: Shall the vessel ask its maker why did tho make me so?) Philosophy as logic has here the negative function of exposing the inadequacy of all intellectual categories (neti, neti!), pointing out how the objects of the world are relative to the mind that thinks them and possess no independent existence. It cannot tell us anything definite about either immutable said to exist apart from what is happening in the world, or about maya, credited with the production of the world. It cannot help us directly to the attainment of reality. It, on the other hand, tells us that to measure reality we have to distort it.The supporters of pure monism recognise a higher power than abstract intellect which enables us to feel the push of reality. We have to sink ourselves in the universal consciousness and make ourselves coextensive with all that is. We do not then so much think reality as live it, do not so much know it as become it.
Reference and read Radhakrishnan's Introduction chapter to his Indian Philosophy here
The Upanisads had not set theory of philosophy or dogmatic scheme of theology to propound. ...The Upanisads have the consistency of intuition rather than of logic....The earliest Upanisads are Aitareya, the Kausitaki, the Tattiriya, the Chandogya, the Brhadaranyaka, and parts of the kena.
But the collection (of Vedas), because it was made chiefly for ritualistic purposes, is incomplete and therefore fails to give a full insight into the character of the thoughts and beliefs that existed then. - Mysore Hiriyanna
Radhakrishnan
The spiritual motive dominates life in India. Indian philosophy has its interest in the haunts of men and not in supra-lunar solitudes.The Puranas contain the truth dressed up in myths and stories … The hard task of interesting the multitude in metaphysics is achieved in India.
When the Indian civilization is called a Brahmanical one, it only means that it's main character and dominating motives are are shaped by its philosophical thinkers and religious minds, though these are not all of Brahmin birth.
Reference the 1st chapter of his philosophy
Religion in India is not dogmatic. It is a rational synthesis which goes on gathering into itself new conceptions as philosophy progresses.
Whenever it tended to crystallise itself in a fixed creed, there were set up spiritual revivals and philosophic reactions which threw beliefs into the crucible of criticism, vindicated the true and combated the false. Again and again we shall observe, how when traditionally accepted beliefs become inadequate, nay false, on account of changed times, and the age grows out of patience with them, the insight of a new teacher, a Buddha or a Mahavira, a Vyasa or a Sankara supervenes, stirring the depths of spiritual life. the Indian mind has been traditionally exercised over the nature of Godhead, the end of life and the relation of the individual to the universal soul. On account of the close connection between theory and practice, doctrine and life, a philosophy which could not stand the test of life, not in the pragmatistic but the larger sense of the term, had no chance of survival. Every doctrine is turned into a passionate conviction, stirring the heart of man and quickening his breath.
Reference and read Radhakrishnan's Introduction chapter to his Indian Philosophy here
The supremacy of religion and of social tradition in life does not hamper the free pursuit of philosophy. It is a strange paradox, and yet nothing more than the obvious truth that while the social life of the individual is bound by the rigors of caste, he is free to roam in the matter of opinion.
Reason freely questions and criticises the creeds in which men are born. The why the heretic, the sceptic, the unbeliever, the rationalist and the free thinker, the materialist and the hedonist all flourish in the soil of India. The Mahabharata says: "There is no muni who has not an opinion of his own."
In India the interest of philosophy is in the self of man. In India "Atmanam viddhi," know the self sums up the law and the prohets. Within man is the spirit that is the centre of everything. Psychology and ethics are the basal sciences. The life of mind is depicted in all its mobile variety and subtle play of light and shade. Indian psychology realised the value of concentration and looked upon it as the means for the perception of the truth. It believed that there were no ranges of life or mind which could not be reached by a methodical training of will and knowledge. It recognised the close connection of mind and body. The psychic experiences, such as telepathy and clairvoyance, were considered to be neither abnormal nor miraculous.
If we ask the reason why there is avidya, or maya, bringing about a fall from vidya or from being, the question cannot be answered. (Paul: Shall the vessel ask its maker why did tho make me so?) Philosophy as logic has here the negative function of exposing the inadequacy of all intellectual categories (neti, neti!), pointing out how the objects of the world are relative to the mind that thinks them and possess no independent existence. It cannot tell us anything definite about either immutable said to exist apart from what is happening in the world, or about maya, credited with the production of the world. It cannot help us directly to the attainment of reality. It, on the other hand, tells us that to measure reality we have to distort it.The supporters of pure monism recognise a higher power than abstract intellect which enables us to feel the push of reality. We have to sink ourselves in the universal consciousness and make ourselves coextensive with all that is. We do not then so much think reality as live it, do not so much know it as become it.
Reference and read Radhakrishnan's Introduction chapter to his Indian Philosophy here
No comments:
Post a Comment