"Śraddhā" is a word that comes up frequently when we're talking about śāstra, and in general it is given a lot of emphasis in our culture. Yet is commonly misunderstood, often because it is equated with the theological idea of "faith" or belief. Śraddhā is an attitude, or bhāvanā born of an understanding of the thing in which we have śraddhā. There is a saying in Sanskrit:
It means that our success in using certain things like śāstra, will depend on the kind of attitude with which we approach them. Having śraddhā is not mandatory, but it is certainly helpful. With respect to śāstra, śraddhā is the attitude born of understanding śastra as a valid means of knowledge.
We can notice a couple of things about the means we use to gain knowledge about the world around us, like our senses:
We can say that we have śraddhā in each of our senses, because once they have revealed a particular piece of information to us, we take it as fact, without trying to corroborate it with another sense. Even if, for example, we know that we are not seeing something correctly - like the colour of an object under red light - we will never question our sense of sight or try and establish the colour of the object using another sense. Instead, we will question whether the situation is conducive for the proper operation of sight. This does not mean we have "faith" or "belief" in our senses; it simply means we understand the fact of their absolute validity.
Śāstra is traditionally looked upon as a means of knowledge for a field that is not accessible to our senses, including rebirth, karmaphala, svarga, and finally knowledge about ourselves (because we are the subjects, not objects of our senses). As such neither can it contradict the knowledge revealed by our senses, nor can it be proved or disproved by them. If we want to know about this part of existence that lies beyond our senses, we can only use śāstra. If we don't use it, what will happen? Nothing. We'll just never know - just as we'd never have known the world of colour if we had never used our sight. So it is not necessary to have śraddhā in śāstra, but there is no point in using śāstra if you don't - just like there is no point in using your sight if you're going to question everything you see.
Keeping this in mind, our approach to śāstra and the guru from whom we are learning should be to suspend our questions and comparisons until we've understood the whole picture. Especially when it comes to vedānta-śāstra, which is very subtle and in many ways opposite to how we are used to looking at things, without śraddhā we will never be able to even understand what the śāstra is trying to say. If we give it time and commitment, we will see that seeming contradictions resolve to present a vision that is completely in keeping with reality.
मन्त्रे तीर्थे द्विजे देवे दैवज्ञे भेषजे गुरौ ।
यादृशी भावना यस्य सिद्धिर्भवति तादृशी ॥
It means that our success in using certain things like śāstra, will depend on the kind of attitude with which we approach them. Having śraddhā is not mandatory, but it is certainly helpful. With respect to śāstra, śraddhā is the attitude born of understanding śastra as a valid means of knowledge.
We can notice a couple of things about the means we use to gain knowledge about the world around us, like our senses:
- Every sense has the capacity to reveal a unique field of objects, e.g. sight only reveals form and colour, hearing only reveals sound, etc.
- As a result, each sense is absolutely valid and unable to be contradicted in its field of operation, e.g. the knowledge of the colour of an object revealed by sight cannot be challenged by knowledge produced by any other sense - no other sense has access into the field of colour.
We can say that we have śraddhā in each of our senses, because once they have revealed a particular piece of information to us, we take it as fact, without trying to corroborate it with another sense. Even if, for example, we know that we are not seeing something correctly - like the colour of an object under red light - we will never question our sense of sight or try and establish the colour of the object using another sense. Instead, we will question whether the situation is conducive for the proper operation of sight. This does not mean we have "faith" or "belief" in our senses; it simply means we understand the fact of their absolute validity.
Śāstra is traditionally looked upon as a means of knowledge for a field that is not accessible to our senses, including rebirth, karmaphala, svarga, and finally knowledge about ourselves (because we are the subjects, not objects of our senses). As such neither can it contradict the knowledge revealed by our senses, nor can it be proved or disproved by them. If we want to know about this part of existence that lies beyond our senses, we can only use śāstra. If we don't use it, what will happen? Nothing. We'll just never know - just as we'd never have known the world of colour if we had never used our sight. So it is not necessary to have śraddhā in śāstra, but there is no point in using śāstra if you don't - just like there is no point in using your sight if you're going to question everything you see.
Keeping this in mind, our approach to śāstra and the guru from whom we are learning should be to suspend our questions and comparisons until we've understood the whole picture. Especially when it comes to vedānta-śāstra, which is very subtle and in many ways opposite to how we are used to looking at things, without śraddhā we will never be able to even understand what the śāstra is trying to say. If we give it time and commitment, we will see that seeming contradictions resolve to present a vision that is completely in keeping with reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment