Absolute is not easily and clearly comprehended it needs a lot of interest in knowing and the support of those who have had little of more knowledge than us. Having said that it is not acceptable without a little argument over the matter, to get convinced and then agree about it. Over the years this is been happening consequently we have so many philosophies. If one is not convinced with a particular philosophy he can find consolation in other.
So is Absolute different to every philosophy, No, it is the same but the interpretation of it is different. Our mind is relative and is unable to grasp the Absolute. It can comprehend only that can be convinced and understood, and there are many philosophies to help it get convinced. Once it is convinced and experienced the Absolute it is in Bliss and will not get distracted or try to disprove the other philosophies. But it will try to help in convincing other seekers by recommending that particular philosophy which had given solace.
Is it wrong to tell or introduce about a philosophy which may help a confused seeker by highlighting the intricate details of what the philosophy is teaching???? No, it is not as it is helping the seeker to tread the path, but it would be wrong to humiliate and demean other philosophies and emphasize one particular. A true seeker should not worry about the declining notes of a philosophy but try to understand the truth which may convince his mind about the Absolute.
There are many ways of interacting with such seekers who have knowledge of Absolute in bits and pieces. It will be like putting the puzzle in place. One such forum is this
Speaking Tree, in my experience of writing blogs I have am gaining knowledge by interacting with seekers. Even though I have put out my thoughts in my blogs, I have understood about Absolute from the responses of seekers which may fuel for some more blogs. Here in this forum we should know about what is unknown and try to get convinced through a positive interaction or argument. There is no point in being adamant and unwilling to get convinced. If one particular philosophy is not our cup of tea there are others for our benefit and it would be of no use to criticize it.
There are blogs glorifying a place of worship, abode of deity which may be of interest to many. If one is not interested he has right to ignore it, it is futile to write about his dissatisfaction. A Hindu has written article on Khwaja Ajmer Sharif and in Bangalore many Hindus and Muslims throng to the Shrine of Infant Jesus every Thursday and it is left to their faith and belief. There is no category in this forum to show our dissatisfaction on philosophies that are unable to convince us.
It is very easy to write criticizing about a certain thought but it is very difficult to produce an equally and convincing answer to it. Many philosophies have surfaced because that thinker could produce one. Either one should try to get convinced or produce something which approves his unconvincing attitude. An inconvincible seeker is like a thirsty horse which has gone to drink at a lake with crystal clear water and is reluctant to drink since it is not satisfied with the shape of the lake, or quantity of water in lake, or no of fishes, or because every time it bends to drink it sees its reflection. An uninterested and inconvincible seeker makes an effort to find fault in all philosophies, but his mission is like searching for stones in yogurt.
No comments:
Post a Comment