Islamic Mysticism

The last lecture on Ibn Arabi was very interesting. It was extremely insightful to see the similarities that the Sufi shared with another famous Sufi poet, Rumi. Rumi wrote many poems about the divine as a relationship between a lover and the beloved. The separation of these two is the interference of the material world or the ego. Arabi discusses much of this in his work. The most intriguing part was the similarities that Hinduism and Buddhism shared with Islamic mysticism. While Islam is perceived to be a more demanding and believing in blindly kind of a faith, there is a mystical aspect that discusses much of Islamic spirituality. While this term is very broad, sufis such as Ibn Arabi attempt to explain that religion is more than the exoteric practice but has a deeper, esoteric element. Arabi describes the polishing of the mirror as an act of polishing the soul to get a clearer image of the real. He says, the real "itself exists...what was required was the polishing of the mirror" (Sells 72-73). The real in this case refers to the divine and the mirror the soul of the human that is covered with dirt of the material world. Thus, one has to achieve the status of a complete human in order to completely cleanse the mirror and take-in the divine light. The state of fana-filla or becoming one with Allah is similar to Enlightenment or the state of complete consciousness where one is able to realize everything. In this state, the person leaves himself and becomes one with the divine. Thus, these two entities are one and the same. It is interesting to point out that in Arabic, the reflexive and non-reflexive forms of its are the same. Thus, it is ambiguous when the Qur'an refers to a pronoun to whom it is being referred. I have always found this fascinating. As a Muslim, it makes me believe that the Arabic language was particularly chosen for the Qur'an to display this ambiguity, but that is a side note.

I also found Arabi's binding of error very interesting. Essentially, it is stating that any one perception of the divine or the path to follow is committing a binding error since it is neglecting all other perceptions or paths. Thus, Arabi was much against Sufi orders. Ironically, he was a Sunni Muslim (Sunnis strongly followed the Sunna of the Prophet). Much of this idea of multiplism stems in the Qur'an as well.  God says, “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other) (Sura 49, Ayat 13). It is very astonishing that many people, including Muslims fail to realize this very important point that Islam is a faith of pluralism. Thus, it can be inferred that there is no one right way to achieve fana-filla, Enlightenment, or salvation. Much of the states of consciousness presented in Hinduism and Buddhism are similar to state of realization- the cleansing of the mirror- such as the reading for today that discusses the aspects of the Buddha's awakening. "Their mindfulness, intelligence, realization, meditation, incantation, and eloquence all were perfected. They had attained the intuitive tolerance of the ultimate incomprehensibility of all things" (Thurman). Overall, it is extremely interesting to find similarities among religions that are so different in their orthopraxy.

Vimalakirti

Hi everyone!

I would like to start out my blog post by saying that the Vimalakirti story is hands down my favorite reading we’ve done so far in this class. Not only did I enjoy the actual story of Licchavi Vimalakirti (though in my opinion he comes across as a pompous prick), this reading really brought together all the ideas we’ve discussed for the past couple weeks. 

I think the main reason that this reading was so accessible to me as a reader was because it was in story form. From the first paragraph, the story pulled me in and kept me reading. Broad philosophical concepts such as subject-object duality and the nature of Dharma were broken down into bite-sized pieces, and were expressed as conversations or vignettes of venerable disciples being schooled by Licchavi Vimalakirti.  Seriously, the guy is like a walking philosophical “Ask Jeeves.” I also found it slightly amusing that he always shows up when a disciple is doing something wrong. Whether it be in a “square in the great city of Vaisali,” a “great forest” or even the disciple’s own home (sorry Jagatimdhara), Licchavi Vimalakirti will find you and educate you (and anyone you’re with) about the Dharma and the secrets of the Universe. No wonder no one wants to pay him a house visit when he’s sick.

Not only was this reading interesting and often amusing (e.g “thirty-two hundred thousand thrones” descended from the sky), it helped me realize some key ideas about the nature of Buddhist philosophy. For example, I always knew that nirvana was the major goal of Buddhism, but I never really understood why normal people would continue teaching others after they conceived enlightenment. Call me a skeptic, but from my observations, generally people only do things if it benefits themselves in some way. However, this reading cleared up this confusion with an explanation of “The Inexhaustible Lamp.” As explained by Vimalakirti (typical), “the more you teach and demonstrate virtuous qualities to others, the more you grow with respect to these virtuous qualities” and eventually “you will repay the kindness of the Tathagata, and you will become the benefactors of all living things.”

I also came to the conclusion that this reading (and arguably several passages in the Pali Nikayas) is a sort of philosophical algorithm. When encountered with a seemingly unsolvable divine problem or paradox,  Buddhist philosophers will systematically discuss every solution that could possibly be conceived. From those solutions, philosophers will pick the one that best answers their question. Profound differences in opinion about the “best” solutions in turn give rise to different schools of thought.

Understanding a Moment in Time

In Michael Sell's "Mystical Languages of Unsaying," I was very confused when I initially read his analysis on the "Eternal Now."  I was unsure of how early Muslims interpreted the concept of time as it applied to objects as well as the creation of those objects.  After re-reading Ibn Arabi's interpretation of certain verses from the Qur'an, it seems that the message is very similar to Drake's motto-- "You Only Live Once." People should not waste their lives, "For one who is heedful of the breaths has the hours in his power" (Sells 107), meaning that people who are careful about how they spend their time will live fulfilling and enriched lives of knowledge and understanding.  Time is relative, but it is how you spend the time you are given that really matters.  Moments of virtue and religious study are vital in living a substantial life because "Whoever has no moment has no lifetime and loses the afterlife" (Sells 107).  These moments are not just instants in time, but opportunities to understand and see the world for what it really is.

This idea that in every instant, everything is re-created differently represents the interconnection between the human world and the divine.  Everything in existence is intertwined, as there is a constant flow of the new and the unknown.  The link between self-discovery of the real and the human act of unveiling this knowledge become one in time.  As humans continuously gain this knowledge and then pass on, the cosmos grow with the re-creation of their presence.  In order to gain wisdom, people should be careful of their breathes, and how these breathes are being spent with the companionship of Allah.  Although life is infinite in existence, people should not waste an opportunity to live it.

Thoughts on the Vimalakirti

I found tomorrow's reading, Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, very interesting (and entertaining!).

From the very beginning of the reading, the heroic and "epic" language used to describe Buddhist figures caught my eye. For example, the boddhisatva's teachings were described as being like a "lion's roar."
 

However, I was also quite intrigued by some of the highlighted sections of the text, in particular, the very first highlighted section. This section brought to mind our previous reading describing negation. Describing a boddhisatva as being "stamped with the insignia of signlessness" seems contradictory to me. How can one be inscribed with something that does not exist? It is almost as if the act of inscribing is negated by what is being inscribed. 

I also found the section describing the "canopy" of parasols as being rather interesting. Comparing the Buddha's teachings or "power" to such a canopy, which spans over galaxy, seems to imply that the Buddha's teachings could show individuals all that is to be known in this world and others.

The Buddha-Field

Purification of the Buddha-Field, to me, is similar to Ram Prasad’s idea of multiplism. This is because when the Great Sage talked about the quality of the Buddha, he used the phrase, “each being beholds the Victor”, which sounds like: anyone who has faith in the Buddha can approach him with a problem and interpret the answer from the Buddha with their own prejudices or “victors”. Furthermore, the Buddha (in this case the author) is capable of giving prose that can be interpretive many ways.

On another note, I got the idea that humans are able to learn from bodhisattvas because bodhisattvas came from humans. I did not think that there was such a distinction between humans who strived to become a Buddha and humans who didn’t. I thought that all were considered “human”. Apparently there is a distinction when it comes to dedication to following the Dharma.

Lastly, I feel like seeing the Buddha-field in a negative manner relates to the polishing of the mirror. To further explain, seeing the highs and lows of the Buddha-field is unacceptable because all should be considered high. This reminds me of the polished mirror because; one has to realize the mirror and the reflection are one, not separate. 

Mirror

The the metaphor of the mirror to describe the deeper meanings of perspective and perception is truly a brilliant observation. Mirrors are incredibly interesting way to show the deeper meanings in nature. I personally loved when sells discusses the dirty mirror. "While looking at a smudged mirror the viewer sees the glass. If the mirror is polished, a shift occurs. The glass becomes invisible, with only the viewer's image reflected. Vision has become self-vision." (Sells 63) What i find the most fascinating about this concept, is that the viewer's can have deeper interpretations of simple things. This idea is the firm basis in achieving all knowledge by understanding the idea of infinite perceptibility, or the removal of fixed perceptions. I found this to be quite a different view point than other islamic ideas, which reject interpretation. I really liked sells simple summation of the sufi belief of perceptibility. He states, "Sufi mystics used the polishing of the mirror as a symbol of the shift be- yond the distinction between subject and object, self and other." (63). I think that this idea is truly a fascinating and innovative way of viewing life and religion, especially in consideration to the ideas of fundamentalism, which totally reject the concept of multiplism.  

The Difference

Our readings this week focused on the analogy of "the polishing of the mirror." I quite enjoyed this analogy and it's implications into how we view ourselves and reality.
What I want to ponder is whether we are more in touch with ourselves when the mirror is polished or clean. The line between the divine and how it is manifested is more blurred when the mirror is clean, and therefore I believe it is harder to become in touch with "reality" and God when the "mirror" is clean. When it is dirty, it is easier to understand the difference between what we believe to be true and what is actually true. I prefer the mirror dirty to further understand the difference.

Points of Convergence

It was interesting to see the convergence of some aspects of Eastern religions in Sells' examination of Ibn 'Arabi's ideas regarding Islam.  The metaphor of the polished mirror presents a scenario in which a "compete human" is able to bridge the gap between the real and the divine and to become enlightened to the fact that those two are actually the same, that the mirror and the reflection are both manifestations of the real.  This seems very similar to the Hindu belief of the interplay between atman and brahman, where an individual strives for a level of self-knowledge that allows for the realization that their "self" is the same as the "essence" of everything that exists in the universe.  Ibn 'Arabi's exploration of this metaphor of the polished mirror seems to follow fairly closely a certain cyclical pattern of hermeneutic analysis; the feat of enlightenment is achieved through questioning and revision of preconceptions to arrive at the conclusion that the tangible and the transcendental are one and the same.

In addition, the concept of the "complete human" being the polisher of the mirror arguably reflects the Buddhist viewpoint of the Two Truths.  The real exists and has always existed, but did not always have a name associated with it.  The naming of the real implies a connection between the real and the divine, since the existence of the real is only because of the cosmos but can still be described in accessible terms. The "complete human" is the only medium through which this connection can be made, and thus is the only being that can understand the connection at all.  This reflects a distinction akin to the Buddhist division of absolute and conventional truth.

While it is unknown whether or not the Eastern religions had a direct influence on Islam, I continue to see compelling connections between seemingly unrelated traditions and philosophies around the world. In fact, it would be even more powerful if these similarities arose independently of each other than if they were adopted and shared throughout different faiths.

Mirror metaphor

Ibn' Arabi used the metaphor of the  mirror in order to articulate the non duality of the human and real. Ibn' Arabi states that "When the real had brought into being the world entire.... the world was like an unpolished mirror" (Sells 72) and "what was required was the polishing of this mirror... and Adam was the very polishing of this mirror" (Sells 73) Ibn' Arabi believed that all prophets could be seen as polishing a mirror and every time the mirror was polished followers of the Qur'an began to forget about the mirror entirely and just see the reflection and the mirror as one thing, which is God. This makes sense because once again Muslims believe that God is not a single entity or any entity really that can be defined by simple humanistic terms. So the fact that God is seen as both the reflection and mirror itself make perfect sense. However what Ibn' Arabi hints at is that the dirt on the mirror is sin or distance from God, and that while the mirror is dirty we can never fully appreciate God. I personally think that Ibn' Arabi's metaphor is wrong.

If the world can be seen as the dirt on the mirror and only when we wipe away the trivialities of the world do we truly appreciate God, then what is the point of the world? The world was supposedly a gift from Allah himself, given to the father of humankind and the first prophet Adam and put here to be cherished until the day of judgment. If we completely wipe away our vision of the world from the mirror we will no longer be able to appreciate what God has given us. We will see the beauty of God and we will see the divinity of his power, however we will not see his greatest gift. The world was given to us to cherish and wiping away all view of it simply shades our view from the awesomeness of God' power. Even if the dirt on the mirror was viewed as simply sin we should not try to eliminate all sin, because without sin there would be no temptation, or evil and without these things one can never understand true happiness or the divinity of God for keeping us from these evils. No the prophets' goal is not to further illuminate God's power for us, but to remind us simply that the entire world was made for us, the least we can do is clean up after ourselves. The only way this metaphor would work is if standing behind us was a homeless man or a slave and when the prophets cleaned the mirror it was to show us that there is suffering and tragedy in the world and it is our duty to extinguish it if we can.

The world is a gift, a flawed one, but a damn good one. We should not waste our time ignoring the world in search of God's power, it is all around us in a tree, in a river, in the clouds. God knows this and placed the prophets here as a sort of maintenance, I believe the exact words in the Qur'an were "Hey! Stop F&@$*%# it up". The prophets remind us of the goodness of God but also that the world must be appreciated, including all its inhabitants, because after all it was the greatest christmas present that little boy Adam ever got, we're just lucky he's still letting us borrow it.

Can we even talk about transcendence?

OK….so this week’s readings were undoubtedly (from my perspective) the hardest to follow. The nature of apophasis is such that attempting to define it verbally (or at the very least, explicitly) is counter to the notion of apophatic logic itself. As I understand it, apophatic logic entails trying to reach a conclusion or confirm a hypothesis through negation. This negation is, as I see it, akin to a process of elimination whereby one arrives at an answer by saying x,y, and z are not true, and hence implicitly hinting at what the answer must be. As Sells writes, “Ibn Arabi's apophatic logic is contained in particularly condensed form in the statement that "Nothing is more universal in its distinction than the lack of distinguishing station." (105) I think I understand the gist of this argument: anything that is stated as positively true (when discussing transcendence) has an opposite and is thus not universal. This is summed up by Sell as he concludes that “the effort to affirm transcendence leads to a continuing series of retractions, a propositionally unstable and dynamic discourse in which no single statement can rest on its own as true or false, or even as meaningful (3).”

I’m not sure I agree with this idea, though. It seems that the advocates of apophatic logic are trying to justify their use of apophatic logic by using apophatic logic. It seems rather circular (or perhaps even a false dichotomy). Let me try clarifying that a bit…

The idea that one can qualify transcendence by not talking about transcendence is based on the idea that using language to describe transcendence is inherently flawed. OK…fine, let’s assume we cannot verbally describe what transcendence is and how to get there through affirmative statements. But does this mean we can get to transcendence by not talking about it? Why are the only two ways to reach transcendence to describe what it is and to describe what it is not (this is why I mentioned the idea of a false dichotomy)?

Perhaps any description of transcendence, either affirmative or dissenting, is inaccurate because transcendence is not something that has anything to do with language. Perhaps transcendence is only reached through action. Remember our previous readings on knowledge and action? I’m starting to see how the argument in favor of action as the only relevant component in reaching the highest good makes a lot of sense when we talk about (or don’t talk about…) transcendence, particularly if transcendence is synonymous with the “highest good”.

Bewilderment as Enlightenment

It seems a ubiquitous idea that in absence of the ability to perform a function, man and mankind delegate; we entrust certain tasks and responsibilities to those whom we know are better suited to execute them. It’s the reason the United States isn’t a muddled direct democracy, but a republic, in which we hand off critical choices to our representatives. It’s the reason that the executive chef at a restaurant doesn’t make the salad dressing, and why the the Dean doesn’t teach comparative religion.

Michael Sells notes a Qur’anic passage in which Allah proclaims that he is “the hearing with which (his beloved servant) hears, the seeing with which he sees, the hand with which he grasps, the feet with which he walks, (and) the tongue with which he speaks.” (Hadith Qudsi) In essence, a “complete” or “kamil” (perfect) human being is the byproduct of an unfeigned, uninhibited, unvarnished collaboration by God and his earthly constituents. (Sells  77) A person in her or his purest form is bereft of any veil, with complete divine awareness and the capacity to carry out God’s intent.

At this point, however, the analogy between ideas like representative democracy and a theological notion like this one is lost on me. Sure, allowing ourselves to fulfill the will of the divine is a profound ethical challenge and a virtuous aspiration. But realistically, how are we to “fully embrace all aspects of both transcendence and immanence,” when we might not even know where to begin? (PowerPoint 10/30/12)

The Muslim tradition – and particularly Ibn Arabi – answers my query. “Bewilderment,” to the great Islamic commentator, is synonymous with “knowledge.” (Sells  101) In his telling of the story of Noah and the Polytheists, he recognizes the righteousness and nobility in uncertainty. Such an equation (evolving confusion and enlightenment) isn’t a novel one in the history of the Abrahamic faiths. Yisrael (anglicized as “Israel”) literally means, in biblical Hebrew, “struggle with God.” According to the Torah’s narrative, both Moses and Abraham, at the burning bush and Sodom and Gomora respectively, engaged in struggles either to interpret God or change God’s mind. Yet again, we stumble upon logical contradiction.

Ibn' Arabi

Ibn'Arabi was a grand-master Sufi that is famous for his metaphor of the "polished mirror." Mirrors are often used to convey a deeper meaning about the self and the world. A reflection is much more than what you see... reflection is perception of existence. Ibn'Arabi identified with the example of a dirty mirror: "While looking at a smudged mirror the viewer sees the glass. If the mirror is polished, a shift occurs. The glass becomes invisible, with only the viewers image reflected. Vision has become self-vision" (Sells 63). To have this knowledge, the real manifests itself in differentiated forms; to have a culmination of this knowledge, combine the aspects of self knowing and the knower.

     In this weeks reading the idea that complete knowledge means giving up fixed understandings caught my eye.  The thought that we have "no starting point" reminded me strongly of the tabula rasa idea that Aristotle and Locke talked about (Sells 101).  They philosophized that we were born as a blank slate.  However, their philosophy saw knowledge as an object that could be obtained through sensory experiences and then be fixed while our reading referenced a more circular sense that includes getting rid of previous knowledge.  Thus I see our reading as us being a blank slate our whole lives in a way.
     One problem I have with this ideology is the fact that some knowledge is only comprehendible
from a point where one builds on other knowledge.  For instance, it's hard to learn calculus without first gaining a fixed understanding in basic addition, subtraction, etc.  However I agree with how one needs to rid himself/herself of previous prejudices to understand some concepts.

Human vs. Angel

In the Ibn’Arabi reading this week, the discussion of the “Human vs. Angel” caught my attention.  More specifically, the error of binding that occurs with angels.  In my defense, I view an angel as this delicate, pure, benevolent, figure who is the messenger of God.  They are these innocent creatures and are completely faultless.  With a halo above their heads and a pair of wings, they can do no wrong, right?  Well, apparently that is not the case.

 Firstly, angels commit the error of binding.  They are guilty of “[attempting] to fix the deity of within a particular manifestation.” (79)  Each possess their are own perspective and are bound to it so they only see God partially because “the real has an infinite number of names and manifestations.  Each manifestation is valid in itself.” (79) By fixing the real into only one form, they deny the real’s true nature.  And to bind the real into a precise form is the ultimate error.  It appears that an angel is no longer the epitome of perfection.

In addition to my disbelief, is the thought that humans are superior to angels in some aspect.  “The angels, regardless of the intensity of their powers, are not universal.  Only human nature can achieve universality or completeness.” (78)  To be frankly honest, I find this rather humorous because… angels took pride that they are superior among the others because they praised Allah above the other divine names.  I guess it makes sense that this will make them more worthy than humans.  But because of that flawed arrogance, they can never reach full realization.  While on the other hand, a mere human is capable of realizing both creation and the real and achieving completeness.  Like in Greek tragedy, the angels’ hubris of praising God the best, led them to their shortcoming.

Humans > Angels

In class, we spoke a lot about what being the complete human really means and how a human actually becomes complete. A complete human is the idea that, in unity with God, the limited capacities for knowledge and action become one with Allah’s own self-knowledge and with the universal nature of the real. In order for a human to become complete, one must fully embrace all of the aspects of the transcendence and immanence because the human being has the ability to recognize everything. A human has to recognize that the real exists in everything in order to realize this falling away of the limited ego. I became even more interested when we began speaking about the human vs. the angel. The complete human is different than the angels, who can only somewhat see God and stick to their own perspective. They carry out this “error of binding,” because they see the real only in one form and deny its true nature. Humans, on the other hand, are the dividing line between transcendence and immanence and do not fix the real into only one form. Instead, the complete human can recognize all the aspects of both the creation and the real, because the complete human knowledge is the divine self-knowledge. I found the example of angelic boast to be very interesting when thinking about these differences between the complete human and angels. Sells refers to the myth about how angels claimed to praise God the best since they know the divine names, however each angel only knows a single name. The angels cannot completely praise God because they do not realize each aspect. Only humans can realize all of the aspects. Sells says, “The angels, regardless of the intensity of their powers, are not universal. Only human nature can achieve universality or completeness”(Sells 78). To me, I found this idea really interesting, because when I first came upon the part about humans vs. angels, I automatically thought the angel would exceed the human. However, after reading, it is clear that the angel has only one perspective whereas the human recognizes all aspects. Please feel free to comment if you have anything else to add about these topics! 

Who has the closer connection?

      After yesterday's discussion, I made a interesting, yet quite confusing observation regarding the relationship between the complete human and the afterlife in Islam. Due to the a human's full capability of "realization", only a human can "fully embrace all aspects of transcendence and immanence" ( Powerpoint 10/30). However, my confusion starts with the comparison between human and angel. Sells states that "an individual can realize union with divine only by realizing a state of complete, perpetual transformation, [while] angles tend to fix the deity within particular manifestation"( Sells, 79). However, I find the confusion between the concept of error of binding and life after the Day of Reckoning. Firstly, are angles described as humans after life in the physical world? If so, if an individual passes judgement day, would not he or she feel a closer connection with a higher deity? I understand the nature of the real is constantly changing, however does the nature of the divine constantly change also? I understand the angel's perspective in terms of viewing the divine in a certain way, however is this not the end goal: to escape the suffering of human life and reach the pinnacle state of a cosmic relationship with God.

More Perfect Humans

My favorite part of the Ibn Arabi reading was the section on humans versus angel because it challenged my notion of what it means to be human. I have always believed an angel to be a perfect divine sort of being who holds a close and special relationship to God. Consequently, my train of thought would place angels above humans. This hierarchy would give humans something to strive for in this life.
       While one might still desire to become an angel, ‘Arabi places humans above angels: “Ibn ‘Arabi makes explicit the implication throughout his homage to the complete human that the complete human is in fact more kamil than the deity because it exists on all levels, from the eternal to the mortal, from the spiritual to the elemental” (79). Humans are seen as “more kamil”, or perfect, since they are not bound to any one perspective. While angels are bound in (what I’m guessing to be) the “eternal” or the “spiritual” humans, or complete humans, do not have this problem. “Exist(ing) on all levels” points to the fact that humans are not bound to any one viewpoint and can constantly change their opinions and thoughts. I like this flexibility, but I always saw it as inferior to angels who had one, presumably correct, outlook. ‘Arabi shows just how positive it can be to not be bound to an idea.

Ibn' Arabi

The concept of The Polishing of the Mirror is that when a mirror is dirty, a person can only see the dirty mirror with smudges and a distorted reflection. However, when the mirror is clean, a person only sees the reflection in the mirror and does not see the mirror itself; it becomes invisible. We need to be able to understand that the reflection and mirror are the same thing. Also, the complete human being is the polishing of the mirror. This idea was interesting to me as well as the concept that complete knowledge requires undermining fixed understandings. I perceived this as sometimes it is necessary to doubt accepted teachings and that confusion is sometimes good because then you can understand it more thoroughly or find more knowledge on your own and therefore have a complete understanding.

Polishing the Mirror

Yesterday, we learned that polishing of the mirror symbolizes “the shift beyond the distinction between subject and object, self and other.” (63) When the mirror is smeared, it obscures the reflection of self, and when we polish the mirror, we can see the reflection and mirror “disappears.” Our manifestation derives from differentiating these forms, but since knowing that the mirror and the reflection are in fact one, “differentiated knowing constantly transforms into self-knowing.” Thinking this about it backward, I see that clouding up the mirror is our ignorance, our lack of self. What’s crucial about this metaphor is that there exists an object. Before there is any reflection, there is a presupposed knowledge that self exists. So the given condition is that with the existing self, one must understand thy self by acknowledging thy self through a reflection. Our perception of self, the reflection, is required to attain that manifestation. I feel like this idea very convoluted. 

10/24

I am using my free post for 10/24/12 :)

Action

The Unsaying is, to me, the most thought provoking concept. I have always known that gods are all powerful, however, I never knew that calling them all powerful confines their power. The question that I gathered from this is  - how are we supposed to communicate knowledge of something so prominent to our lives if communication contradicts the identity of the thing we are trying to communicate knowledge about? Upon further thought, I came to realize that the way knowledge is communicated/understood, is through experiences.  People seem to understand things in its entirety through the situations they are put in.

I enjoyed our readings for the beginning of this week quite a bit. I really like the idea of knowledge and action as one in the same, a process. When I was reading about the differences between knowledge and action as presented by Kumarila and Sankara, I kept thinking that while the differences are inherent and true, there is also a lot to be said for the way the two work together. Obtaining knowledge in the first place involves action, and the act of engaging in some action inadvertently results in a gain of knowledge. Take riding a bike for example. You obtain knowledge while engaging in the action. One cannot exist without the other, processing knowledge is an action.

     One thing I found interesting last week was the idea of multiplism.  While I can understand the idea of multiple realities existing based on individual perspective, I find it hard to think that one could then know about other perspectives and and still believe it even when it contrast with her/her own.  On top of this, multiplism has the non-violet attitude that hinders one from trying to change or stop another reality.  I don't care for this because I feel like bad schemas would be allowed to run rampant and others could easily be harmed.  Furthermore I see this as somewhat paradoxical considering its easily possible for schemas to involve the hurting/converting of others.  This can be seen by all the genocides in our history and still today.  So while in general I see multiplism as a good idea, technically I feel its not truely possible.

Action vs Knowledge

For this week’s blog post I thought I would discuss my take on action versus knowledge.

In class, we discussed the Mīmāṃsā and Advaita Vedānta schools of thought. Generally, I oriented myself more towards the Mīmāṃsā school of thought. Granted, I do actually prefer reading the Upanishads over passages on Vedic ritual, but the Mīmāṃsā idea that action is greater than knowledge really resonates with me.

Although knowledge makes up our intellect, our actions define us as people. There is truth to the cliche “actions speak louder than words” or in this case “actions speak louder than thoughts.” Knowing something is wrong doesn’t mean you won’t stop doing it. Ultimately, actions are influenced by other actions.

To support my point, I thought Ram-Prasad’s gambling example was especially effective. Although a gambler may know the risks and consequences involved, that knowledge alone cannot counteract the action of gambling. As stated in the article “his opponent is mistaken if they think that the attainment of knowledge of the good (the ritually correct, the virtuous, the moral, the prudential) can stop actions that are set against it.” In reality, “right cognitions” cannot always counteract “wrong actions.” 

Though I generally favor the Mīmāṃsā outlook, this in no way means I discredit the importance of knowledge! Knowledge in many cases can prevent “wrong actions” from occurring (e.g - prevention programs). However, it is the actions one takes, including acquiring knowledge, that reign paramount.