In conversations with atheist friends, I’ve had to point out that, while they sometimes mock people of faith, it actually requires a great deal of faith to profess atheism. But, more importantly, not only does the human soul crave that connection without ever having been “indoctrinated” by religion, but Socrates (maybe through Plato) argued that friendship is rooted in the shared pursuit of truth and virtue… a joy that is intentionally passed up by “proselyting” atheists.
A thought experiment: let's ask, "If X follows a certain philosophy all the way to the end, what sort of transformation is brought about as a result?" In other words, we're asking about the best case scenarios. I don't see how two clever atheists--say, Dawkins or d'Holbach--stack up to two nondual lovers--say, Ramana Maharshi or Anandamayi Ma.
I think it was Pope Benedict, who said “one thing that atheist and believers have in common is they will both learn the truth when they die.“ And that is so true because both sides believe a certain thing, but they can’t prove it. What’s so distressing is believers can point to the scripture but that really doesn’t prove that there’s a God. Scriptures are what someone wrote who believed what they were writing is true. I think it was emperor Marcus Aurelius who said “it all boils down to an opinion.“ I would be interested in your thoughts.
I think the "gap" in Western epistemology, as regards religious understanding, is evident in the fact that there's no room for what in Sanskrit is referred to as "pratyaskha" (or direct experience). If the question, "How can the ultimate be known?," is posed, then we in the West invariably succumb to (a) some form of empiricism based on the senses or to (b) some type of rationalism based on reason and logic.
Obviously, *whatever* God is it's not--at least not intuitively--a tree, a table, or any other sense object. Nor is it obvious, since atheistic arguments have been powerful here, that God's existence can be inferred through the use of natural reason alone. In which case, are we left with atheism, agnosticism, or fideism? (I discuss this issue in this video: https://youtu.be/56xiWE7VEiU?si=jKqkUvY0nYZd4V40.)
No, because what great mystics and seers say is that there's another way of knowing called "direct experience." If one lets the senses dissolve ("pratyahara," or sense withdrawal) and if one lets the mind dissolve, then there comes one-pointed concentration. Now, provided that the attention is fixed solely on the Source, this one-pointed concentration (Papaji: "Fix your attention on the Source") will ultimately reveal itself to be nothing but the Source. This is the end of subject-object duality.
In conversations with atheist friends, I’ve had to point out that, while they sometimes mock people of faith, it actually requires a great deal of faith to profess atheism. But, more importantly, not only does the human soul crave that connection without ever having been “indoctrinated” by religion, but Socrates (maybe through Plato) argued that friendship is rooted in the shared pursuit of truth and virtue… a joy that is intentionally passed up by “proselyting” atheists.
A thought experiment: let's ask, "If X follows a certain philosophy all the way to the end, what sort of transformation is brought about as a result?" In other words, we're asking about the best case scenarios. I don't see how two clever atheists--say, Dawkins or d'Holbach--stack up to two nondual lovers--say, Ramana Maharshi or Anandamayi Ma.
Fabulous essay! Thank you so much! I’ve been thinking of this topic quite a bit lately as I am in my 80s. You really did a fantastic job with it.
You are very welcome. If you have any questions or reflections, feel free to share them.
I think it was Pope Benedict, who said “one thing that atheist and believers have in common is they will both learn the truth when they die.“ And that is so true because both sides believe a certain thing, but they can’t prove it. What’s so distressing is believers can point to the scripture but that really doesn’t prove that there’s a God. Scriptures are what someone wrote who believed what they were writing is true. I think it was emperor Marcus Aurelius who said “it all boils down to an opinion.“ I would be interested in your thoughts.
I think the "gap" in Western epistemology, as regards religious understanding, is evident in the fact that there's no room for what in Sanskrit is referred to as "pratyaskha" (or direct experience). If the question, "How can the ultimate be known?," is posed, then we in the West invariably succumb to (a) some form of empiricism based on the senses or to (b) some type of rationalism based on reason and logic.
Obviously, *whatever* God is it's not--at least not intuitively--a tree, a table, or any other sense object. Nor is it obvious, since atheistic arguments have been powerful here, that God's existence can be inferred through the use of natural reason alone. In which case, are we left with atheism, agnosticism, or fideism? (I discuss this issue in this video: https://youtu.be/56xiWE7VEiU?si=jKqkUvY0nYZd4V40.)
No, because what great mystics and seers say is that there's another way of knowing called "direct experience." If one lets the senses dissolve ("pratyahara," or sense withdrawal) and if one lets the mind dissolve, then there comes one-pointed concentration. Now, provided that the attention is fixed solely on the Source, this one-pointed concentration (Papaji: "Fix your attention on the Source") will ultimately reveal itself to be nothing but the Source. This is the end of subject-object duality.