While reading this entry, I could not help but to furrow my eye brows the whole time and roll my eyes a couple times throughout it as well. Maybe I didn't understand it completely, but the whole thing really annoyed me. First of all, I am a Christian and believe deeply in God. But anyways, I believed that in the begging of this entry they were talking about faith. Faith in God, Buddha or whoever you believe in. Knowing He can do many things and has done many things. If you believe He has, then it is true. Then it seemed to completely flip. It seemed like it was saying; for example, many believe that "everything happens for a reason". That God has a plan for all of us. But with this Upanishads passage, to me, it was basically saying, no, everything doesn't happen for a reason. THIS happened because you made THAT decision. God didn't help you. Then it goes on to say "If you understand the meaning of 'I neither know nor don't know,' you understand God. With that and the whole last part of the passage it almost seemed to say, if you know nothing, you believe in God. If you're totally intelligent and have a great understanding of things, you don't believe in God. So, you're smart if you don't believe in God and a total fool if you do believe??
Someone, tell me if I completely butchered the understanding of this passage. Otherwise, I'm not too fond of these Upanishads..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have to say I got a completely different message from the reading. I dont think in any way that the writers of the Upanishads were saying "if you know nothing, you believe in God. If you're totally intelligent and have a great understanding of things, you don't believe in God" as you said. I interpreted it as they believe in God but understand that one can never know the specific details about God (because the human mind cannot fully comprehend God). God is everything and everything is God. "Those who claim they know, know nothing", they just assume.
I got a completely different message from the Upanishads. I felt that the point of the excerpt was to explain that God, however you believe him/her/it to be, is everywhere and in everything. I was very moved by this reading. There is no easy way to understand this reading, and that is the point. It requires and understanding for things that cannot be understood. No matter how religious or spiritual a person may be, no one has a full and complete grasp of God. "I neither know nor don't know"
Katy, I am with you about being frustrated. I have read these passages three times with some time in between to let it sink it and perhaps have some sort of epiphany about them. But I still don't completely understand the point they are making.
Yet I think that might be the writer's goal: to just get you thinking.
I am not a big fan of philosophy in general: getting others to think about how to think about things annoys the heck out of me.
However, these passages might appeal to our classmates who enjoy a more philosophical approach to religion, as opposed to a devotional approach.
I think that is the beauty of this course. We will see what people all over the world, and through time, think or have thought about religion and "God".
What we relate to, we can possibly incorporate into our own personal feelings and beliefs. And, what we don't like, we can furrow your brows at.
Aren't we so lucky to live in a place and time where religious freedom is our right?
One common confusion over this type of writing and Christian writings is in the concept of God. Christians see an image of a man, often bearded, in a location (Heaven), surrounded by other beings, on earth in human form, etc. My understanding of the Upanishad (and I may be mistaken) is that God is not a man, or a woman, in any location, doing anything. God simply is everything.
As humans we seek to learn as much as we can about the world we live in. If the world was separate from God, that would be learning about reality--the real world.
Instead, if all things are God, then learning about the world is pointless because separation between God and the physical world does not exist.
This work takes some reading into. In it's simplest form, you and I and all the world IS God. God is not a person, but all things. According to this type of belief, only when you realize that the wind, the sea, the mountain, the animal, and yourself are all made of the same stuff, God, can you be free from trying to identify yourself as separate from.
By this logic, intelligence really does get us nowhere. This may sound odd, but: if all things are part of God, then I am God the same as the chair I sit on is God. I don't need to learn about the chair. I am the chair. The chair is me. Me and the chair are God.
This is a simplification of milennia of eastern realization, but one that fits with the Upanishad.
Hope that helps!
Woody
Post a Comment