In the
previous posts we saw how the Upanishads ‘define’ God or Ätma. And also, how this ‘definition’ does not lead
to endless regress. But how are we sure that such a definition is valid and it
is not just some clever play of words?
It is very difficult to answer this question.
You can talk
or reason about
things that can be
perceived through the senses or imagined by the mind. But we are talking
about an entity which is believed to be imperceptible through our senses, inconceivable
by the mind! Can it ever be argued upon
as valid or invalid?
Even great philosophers like Šankara admit this difficulty.
They say that the only
proof of validity is the ‘visions’ of the sages as recorded in the
Upanishads. If you trust them, you have to just take their word. There is no
way you can deduce these fundamental concepts by any amount of reasoning or
logic, let alone direct sense perception.
What if someone does not accept these Upanishads as valid testimony?
The other alternative
is to put yourselves in
the shoes of these sages and experience it yourself. i.e. practice deep meditation as the sages
did and find out the truth for yourself. All ancient seers, irrespective of
their place of origin, did that. So can you.
What is that deep state of meditation I am talking about? How
does that give you a glimpse of the ultimate truth? Let us see that in the next
post.
 |
| Start (Upanishads) |
Previous Next
No comments:
Post a Comment