Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God

[lightgigantic]

LightGigantic:

This discussion is becoming really unmanable. It is taking hours to go through each post we are making. I suggest we make a new thread where we provide summaries of our arguments on the major topics, so as to condense the matter and to more concisely discuss each issue.

Sounds reasonable -

Here goes

God is not a contradiction, and in fact is a perceivable entity - such perception of his reality (ontology) is fully dependant on the appropriate epistemology - it is not valid to apply an epistemology for perceiving god that one applies for perceiving lesser realities (like dull mater)

- there is the example of how if one desires to perceive the president directly one must come to the presidnt's attention (that is one must apply an epistemology ordained by the president for perceiving him - you see him on his terms - not your own) - the same applies for god

As to what the appropriate epistemology is

1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession

2 - Disciplic succession has its origin in specific foundational , paradigmatic experiences of divine revelation. Scripture contains the record of these experiences as well as of important subsequent instantations of those experiences

3 - Disciplic succession also follows the understanding of revelation by certain great souls, whose realisations and actions are normative

4 - The purpose of disciplic sucecssion is to reprise the original revelatory experience. In other words the experience is recreated without loss or dimunition in each generation

5 - Understanding scripture entails a) the right apprehension of propositional truth and then b) the unmediated apprehension of transcendence, as coveyed through scripture. The purpose of understanding in the first mode is to attain understanding in the second

6 - Disciplic succession contains a system of applied knowledge to effect the personal transformation of its members so that they gain the qualification to receive those experiences of transcendence conveyed by disciplic succession

7 - Disciplic succession conveys knowledge that is not conditioned by human limitations - it is free from the four defects that vitiate "knowledge " by human production (namely - imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality" ---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake --- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert ----a cheating propensity --- our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc

8 - Scripture must be accepted "as it is". Its authority must always be respected. There must be no addition or subtraction, and no distortion. When scripture is so understood, ther meaning of scripture becomes "self evident" and the texts become "self luminous"


9 - Realized knowledge enables one to explain scripture in a way comprehensible to hearers conditioned by time, place and circumstances, while yet completely preserving the integrity of scripture


Thus I have given an indication of what are the qualities of this knowledge, the person seeking knowledge, the person applying this knowledge and the person who has attained perfection by this knowledge, particularly as it applies to vedic inquiry

 

[KennyJC]

1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession

What does scripture have to do with anything? Do you think ancient scripture is somehow more qualified than what people write about 'God' today? What scripture do you judge as being ones worth studying? The most popular ones?

2 - Disciplic succession has its origin in specific foundational , paradigmatic experiences of divine revelation. Scripture contains the record of these experiences as well as of important subsequent instantations of those experiences

These experiences are embelished and imagined.

3 - Disciplic succession also follows the understanding of revelation by certain great souls, whose realisations and actions are normative

They have to say they got their BS from a 'holy spirit', soul, burning bush or whatever. If you believe them then you are gullible. Not that I'm suggesting it is normal for a theist to be gullible in matters of God.......................

4 - The purpose of disciplic sucecssion is to reprise the original revelatory experience. In other words the experience is recreated without loss or dimunition in each generation

Why do you think the myths do not diminish? Because people want to believe superstitious things. This is the same as any cult. The person who makes the claim with no basis in reality is first considered insane, then he gets a few followers then he has a cult, then he gets a few million followers and he has a religion, and the popularity of the superstitious belief therefor means it's no longer insane.

5 - Understanding scripture entails a) the right apprehension of propositional truth and then b) the unmediated apprehension of transcendence, as coveyed through scripture. The purpose of understanding in the first mode is to attain understanding in the second

Well I've always said that scripture is irrelevant to the intelligent creator of the universe. If you can not take it literally then you are just skewing it beyond it's intention. In those days I'm sure the writers would have never imagined man would have known how old the universe was or where life came from. But in these days we do, so much of scripture has to be re-invented.

6 - Disciplic succession contains a system of applied knowledge to effect the personal transformation of its members so that they gain the qualification to receive those experiences of transcendence conveyed by disciplic succession

It's called brainwashing.

7 - Disciplic succession conveys knowledge that is not conditioned by human limitations

Scripture and religious faith is one great big human limitation.

8 - Realized knowledge enables one to explain scripture in a way comprehensible to hearers conditioned by time, place and circumstances, while yet completely preserving the integrity of scripture

Even if that is so, what does this have to do with the creator of the universe? Here we have a universe probably not created by intelligence and we have scripture... and since heaven obviously doesn't exist, scripture describes nothing.

Thus I have given an indication of what are the qualities of this knowledge, the person seeking knowledge, the person applying this knowledge and the person who has attained perfection by this knowledge, particularly as it applies to vedic inquiry

You haven't succeeded. All you have to go on is the people that started the myths and the cult. Do you have anything related to rational enquiry? Everything you said could apply to the FSM religion or the teacup that is going around the sun (didn't you know).

 

[lightgigantic]

I am not sure but I think this is supposed to be an attempt at a rational argument - anyway here goes

What does scripture have to do with anything?

err ... God

Do you think ancient scripture is somehow more qualified than what people write about 'God' today? What scripture do you judge as being ones worth studying? The most popular ones?

If you examine what was given as an epistemology you can determine the value of scripture, regardless of its apparent chronology or popularity

These experiences are embelished and imagined.

A popular view amongst those who attempt to perceive any ontology by neglecting the related epistemology ....

They have to say they got their BS from a 'holy spirit', soul, burning bush or whatever. If you believe them then you are gullible. Not that I'm suggesting it is normal for a theist to be gullible in matters of God.......................

Hardly a highly clarified perception

Why do you think the myths do not diminish? Because people want to believe superstitious things. This is the same as any cult. The person who makes the claim with no basis in reality is first considered insane, then he gets a few followers then he has a cult, then he gets a few million followers and he has a religion, and the popularity of the superstitious belief therefor means it's no longer insane.

The whole point about following epistemology, provided it is the correct epistemology, is that it grants something distinct from mere wanting, desire and imagination - if it was possible to approach an onotology (any ontology) without an epistemology reality would be self evident and not require any cultuer of knowledge

Well I've always said that scripture is irrelevant to the intelligent creator of the universe. If you can not take it literally then you are just skewing it beyond it's intention. In those days I'm sure the writers would have never imagined man would have known how old the universe was or where life came from. But in these days we do, so much of scripture has to be re-invented.

Interesting - but it seems that you are confirming the fifth point by revealing your lack of theoretical knowledge

It's called brainwashing.

Actually it is called science - follow a process and you get a result - of course you may not appreciate the value of the result because it disrupts your preconceived set of values- in other words you have already been brain washed



S

cripture and religious faith is one great big human limitation.

Another grand opinion -

Even if that is so, what does this have to do with the creator of the universe? Here we have a universe probably not created by intelligence and we have scripture... and since heaven obviously doesn't exist, scripture describes nothing.

What is obvious to a high school drop out may not be obvious to a havard PHD in physics - particularly in regard to physics

You haven't succeeded. All you have to go on is the people that started the myths and the cult. Do you have anything related to rational enquiry? Everything you said could apply to the FSM religion or the teacup that is going around the sun (didn't you know).

Seems like you didn't realise the importance of the first point - you cannot distinguish between a qualified person and an unqualified one so you use the vehicle of an unqualified spiritual practioner to establish that all such practioners operate out of the same paradigm

 

[S.A.M.]

lightgigantic:

It seems to me that the rationalists on this forum have a poor background in both philosophy and spirituality. They cannot comprehend what you are saying because they approach everything from the premise that it should be obvious to even exist.

i.e. your question being,

"Do you really know what you think you know?"

and, if so,

"How do you know what you know?"

 

[lightgigantic]

I guess I was hoping for a higher grade of discussion on this forum

 

[S.A.M.]

Well when I attempted to explain the simple basis of spirituality, ie the exploration of significance of life, transcendence, connecting to nature and self-knowledge, it was rationalised as part of a cognitive process which requires nothing further than education and hence no spiritual investment. I doubt that concepts like epistemology and ontology are within the grasp of many here.

 

[lightgigantic]

You must have encountered more intelligent persons - at least they credited it to education

 

[S.A.M.]

I mean they felt that conventional education was a substitute for spiritual studies since morality is a rational and evolved behavior and the spirit (of course) is non-existent .

 

[S.A.M.]

lightgigantic:

how does the Dvaita school of Vedanta differ from the Advaita?

 

[KennyJC]

err ... God

And you are saying scripture is 'qualified'? What I find endlessly funny is that you think anyone is qualified to ramble on about this three letter word with any degree of truth. Your whole premis relies on this.

If you examine what was given as an epistemology you can determine the value of scripture, regardless of its apparent chronology or popularity

Value of scipture as in it's truth? How do you measure this? Especially if it is clear that is ancient bullshit? The foundations of any religious cult have no relevance and is entirely self-generated.

A popular view amongst those who attempt to perceive any ontology by neglecting the related epistemology ....

Instead of using this word 'epistemology' which you probably got from word of the day toilet paper, perhaps you could do a better job than your opening post at describing what relevance the beginning of a religious cult has?

Hardly a highly clarified perception

Why? Do you think these dudes are being honest when describing the vision a 'holy spirit' gave them? Your 'epistemology' depends on that. Given the nature of religious people, honesty is something they can't claim (Just look at how the exploded everything 'Jesus' did). Gullability however, is. Religion is based on myth passed on through generations, THAT is the epistemology.

The whole point about following epistemology, provided it is the correct epistemology, is that it grants something distinct from mere wanting, desire and imagination - if it was possible to approach an onotology (any ontology) without an epistemology reality would be self evident and not require any cultuer of knowledge

So you think there is a 'correct epistemology' that validates angels that visit Earth and ghostly apparitions that visit members at the beginnings of a particular religious cult? Oh and the literal son of this God of yours visiting Earth before bodily ascending back up to daddy? It is insane.

Interesting - but it seems that you are confirming the fifth point by revealing your lack of theoretical knowledge

Then you will have to explain why theoretical knowledge must be applied to religious texts.

Actually it is called science - follow a process and you get a result - of course you may not appreciate the value of the result because it disrupts your preconceived set of values- in other words you have already been brain washed

In the context you place it, it most certainly isn't science. If I come up with a notion that there exists somewhere in the universe a human head with the body of a spider, and I convince someone else to share my belief, then that is brainwashing.

Scripture is and always will be claims with no evidence and self-generated notions about an invisible sky fairy. It is always attempting to get as many people as possible to believe this.

If I don't appreciate the value of scripture it is because like all religious texts, it is a canvas for embelishment. And if there is some truth within it, then it will be impossible to know where it is amongst the obvious BS.

Another grand opinion

You think it is not a human limitation to be brainwashed by attractive ideas? Astrology is human limitation is the same fashion. Far from opinion, it is observable fact.

Seems like you didn't realise the importance of the first point - you cannot distinguish between a qualified person and an unqualified one so you use the vehicle of an unqualified spiritual practioner to establish that all such practioners operate out of the same paradigm

1) Ok who is qualified?
2) Maybe one day you will realize that nobody (least of all blind believers) can be qualified on something that effectively does not exist.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:

how does the Dvaita school of Vedanta differ from the Advaita?

There are different interpretations of these words to refer to different schools of thought - but in a general sense the dvaita school allows for a dichotomy between the living entity and god (both are accepted as eternal truths) whereas the advaita school says that the sense of individuality of the living entity is an ilusory designation and that upon the point of liberation one will become god - on a cursory examination they may not appear that much different but when you examine the ramifications of the advaita school conclusions there are many illogical premises, the main one being how did god enter into illusion (if we are all ultimately the omnipotent god of this manifestation, how did we enter into illusion - in otherwords illusion is given an ontological superiority to god) - the advaita school, pioneered by sankacharya, appears after the decline of buddhism and is sometimes refferred to as veiled buddhism - after the advaita school was established it was challenged by the dvaita school which has four proponants, that finally culminated in the philosophy of Caitanya Mahaprabhu

Here is a quote from http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/sadhu/sampradayas/brahma/brahma.htm

"Perhaps you know the picture of Madhvacarya, one of the great Acaryas in our line, who is holding two fingers up to indicate Krishna and jiva (jiva - living entity). The impersonalists (advaita) hold up one finger because their idea is that everything is one. So if we make the Spiritual Master identical with Krishna, then we will also become impersonalists. If we say that our Spiritual Master is Krishna, then the conclusion is that if we become Spiritual Master some day, then we will also become Krishna. Please try to understand how dangerous this kind of reasoning is.

Within the dvaita school there is a further break down to the following

Nimbarka - dvaitadvaita (oneness and dualism)
Visnuswami - suddhadvaita (purified oneness)
Ramanujacarya - visistadvaita (specific oneness)
Madhvacarya - dvaita (dualism)
and finally Caitanya - acintyabedabeda tattva

But these are all variations on the theme of the essential duality of the dvaita school and are not to be confused with the advaita school of sankacharya

 

[S.A.M.]

lightgigantic:

Thanks. I understand the dvaita school of thought is the most established and accepted one.

How do they define the difference between Brahma(consciousness) and Ishvar ?

 

[lightgigantic]

And you are saying scripture is 'qualified'? What I find endlessly funny is that you think anyone is qualified to ramble on about this three letter word with any degree of truth. Your whole premis relies on this.

Actually if you took the time to uncover the signifigance between the relationship between ontology and epistemology you would understand that I don't think anyone is qualified in that regard

Value of scipture as in it's truth? How do you measure this? Especially if it is clear that is ancient bullshit? The foundations of any religious cult have no relevance and is entirely self-generated.

Its remarkable how you can respond to comments as if you don't read them - for your benefit here it is again
"If you examine what was given as an epistemology you can determine the value of scripture, regardless of its apparent chronology or popularity "
Also once again, what is "clear" to a high school drop out may not be clear to a PHD in physics, particularly in regard to physics

Instead of using this word 'epistemology' which you probably got from word of the day toilet paper, perhaps you could do a better job than your opening post at describing what relevance the beginning of a religious cult has?

Actually a religious cult, meaning a bunch of fanatics, is a religious group that is bereft of the correct epistemology - as for the nature of these terms, epistemology and ontology, they are intrinsic to philosophy, which may not be a subject you are familiar with

Why? Do you think these dudes are being honest when describing the vision a 'holy spirit' gave them? Your 'epistemology' depends on that. Given the nature of religious people, honesty is something they can't claim (Just look at how the exploded everything 'Jesus' did). Gullability however, is. Religion is based on myth passed on through generations, THAT is the epistemology.

Once again you are floundering on the first point, namely .....
"Seems like you didn't realise the importance of the first point - you cannot distinguish between a qualified person and an unqualified one so you use the vehicle of an unqualified spiritual practioner to establish that all such practioners operate out of the same paradigm "

So you think there is a 'correct epistemology' that validates angels that visit Earth and ghostly apparitions that visit members at the beginnings of a particular religious cult? Oh and the literal son of this God of yours visiting Earth before bodily ascending back up to daddy? It is insane.

Regardless of what you hold as the actual realm of religious ontology (BTW which is more than likely is bogus if you neglect the epistemology for perceiving it) you seem to be neglecting the fourth point

Then you will have to explain why theoretical knowledge must be applied to religious texts.

For the same reason theory is taught before prac in the study of science in university

In the context you place it, it most certainly isn't science. If I come up with a notion that there exists somewhere in the universe a human head with the body of a spider, and I convince someone else to share my belief, then that is brainwashing.

Then you would be non-different from any fool who didn't apply the appropriate epistemology for perceiving the ontology - nowhere did I mention the epistemology you seem to be advocating for religious ontology ("coming up" with something)

Scripture is and always will be claims with no evidence and self-generated notions about an invisible sky fairy. It is always attempting to get as many people as possible to believe this.
If I don't appreciate the value of scripture it is because like all religious texts, it is a canvas for embelishment. And if there is some truth within it, then it will be impossible to know where it is amongst the obvious BS.

“ A popular view amongst those who attempt to perceive any ontology by neglecting the related epistemology .... ”

You think it is not a human limitation to be brainwashed by attractive ideas? Astrology is human limitation is the same fashion. Far from opinion, it is observable fact.

I think it is brainwashing when someone attempts to establish their authority in a field of knowledge and be grossly negligent of the related epistemology for perceiving the knowledge in question

1) Ok who is qualified?

One who has practically applied the epistemology for perceiving the reality of god - more info on point 3

2) Maybe one day you will realize that nobody (least of all blind believers) can be qualified on something that effectively does not exist.

Actually I do realise that blind believers are not qualified - if you actually read the original post with attention you could see that, at least theoretically, despite whatever your preconceived values establish as irevoable fact- your position is however that blind disbelievers (ie persons who are also equally bereft of applying the appropriate epistemology) are some how more qualified in their statements

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:

Thanks. I understand the dvaita school of thought is the most established and accepted one.

How do they define the difference between Brahma(consciousness) and Ishvar ?

Actually the advaita school i s more prominant because when the english were given the task of compiling india's rich spiritual culture into one "ism" (later on taking the form as hinduism as we know it today) - all for the sake of presenting something eurocentric - they used sankacharya's commentaries, probably because his catergories are more broad and allow for more wishy washiness, and completely neglected the writings of the dvaita school.

As for brahma, I take it you mean brahman (distinct from Brahma, who is accepted as the first jiva, or living entity, in the material cosmos) - brahman means eternal - spiritual substance is qualified by eternity, knowledge and bliss - so the advaita school primarily preoccupy themselves with the pursuit of brahman (which the dvaita school declares to be a partial understanding of the absolute truth because it neglects the other two qualities - isvara means controller, and the supreme controller is accepted as Narayan/krishna by the dvaita school on the strength of scripture, namely the Isopanisad, however others accept siva as isvara on a different basis (the dvaita school attribute siva as a sakti of god, or the energy of god, as opposed to the energetic source - so its an easy blunder to make) - anyway to talk of the isvara one must at least be on the level of knowledge (ie that there is a primary distinction between the living entity and god) or knowledge and bliss (deriving the happiness from that realtionship establshed inknowledge),

....hence someone on the level of brahman would be an advaitist, striving to control the dualities of temporal nature (lust, wrath etc) and situate themeselves on the platform of eternity, and a person endeavouring to realise the isvara would be a yogi trying to perceive th elord in their heart and indeed the heart of all living entities (that's where god exists as a controler) or alternatively perceiving the bliss of that relationship and interacting with god directly as a controler (exclusive to the school of bhakti presented in the dvaita school) - there is a natural progression from realizing the quality of brahman (eternity) to the quality of knowledge and then finally the quality of bliss - all are qualities of the absolute truth, but there is a progression

 

[S.A.M.]

What does Vaishnavism entail?

Do they accept Vishnu as Ishvar? If so what is the position of Siva/Shakti in Vaishnavs?

And what of the trinity concept? Brahma, Vishnu and Mahadeva? Do they fall under different schools of dvaita?

 

[Cris]

Light,

God is not a contradiction,

In comparison to what? And don’t you mean the concept of God since we don’t know that any actual gods exist yet?

and in fact is a perceivable entity

To perceive means to be aware of or have an understanding through the senses. Since the actual existence of any such thing has yet to be established your assertion here is at least dubious and at best very premature.

- such perception of his reality (ontology)

Ontology can be said to study conceptions of reality and you seem to be implying actual reality; there is a distinction.

is fully dependant on the appropriate epistemology - it is not valid to apply an epistemology for perceiving god that one applies for perceiving lesser realities (like dull mater)

Well no you are not free to assert that. Attempts to assert that knowledge can be acquired through faith for example is an age old issue and is still being debated. While the religionists want to believe that knowledge of existence can be acquired through some mechanism other than empiricism they have yet to prove their case. And really the thrust of your thread here is an attempt to assert that this has occurred – it has not.

- there is the example of how if one desires to perceive the president directly one must come to the presidnt's attention (that is one must apply an epistemology ordained by the president for perceiving him

No I’m afraid you’ve severely screwed up your example here. Nice attempt though. Being aware and perceiving him is entirely independent of whether he agrees or not. Actually meeting him is another matter, but hardly a matter of epistemology.

- you see him on his terms - not your own) - the same applies for god

The analogy breaks down because knowledge of existence in every known case is not dependent on the permission of the entity being sought. One of the key arguments against the existence of a god is where he seems to want us to know him yet doesn’t make his existence unambiguous; this doesn’t make any sense, but is fully consistent with his non-existence.

1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession

This isn’t valid since it is the knowledge that is in question not the way the alleged knowledge is published.

2 - Disciplic succession has its origin in specific foundational , paradigmatic experiences of divine revelation. Scripture contains the record of these experiences as well as of important subsequent instantations of those experiences

Again this isn’t an epistemological issue but one of doctrine and institution. How does the recipient know he is being given knowledge rather than myth? And this is also a circular argument; the epistemological issue here is whether divine revelation occurs, and here it is being assumed.

3 - Disciplic succession also follows the understanding of revelation by certain great souls, whose realisations and actions are normative

No, that is part of the epistemological debate, you are quoting doctrine.

And really the rest of your post makes the same basic errors.

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession"

This only produces a system which exists to perpetuate itself. That is to say, by organizing the priesthood upon such principles, we find that the priesthood becomes corrupt. It also requires the sincerity of each priest in the succession and on obedience to said sincere priests, neither of which will occur to any level of perfection.

"2 - Disciplic succession has its origin in specific foundational , paradigmatic experiences of divine revelation. Scripture contains the record of these experiences as well as of important subsequent instantations of those experiences"

There divine revelatory experiences cannot be trusted unless the claims of God are philosophically or empirically investigatable, nor are the reports of claims of God (scriptures) to be accepted without proof of the experience existing as such.

"3 - Disciplic succession also follows the understanding of revelation by certain great souls, whose realisations and actions are normative"

See above (immediatly).

"4 - The purpose of disciplic sucecssion is to reprise the original revelatory experience. In other words the experience is recreated without loss or dimunition in each generation"

Recreated in what way? Actually? Or in terms of the knowledge granted?

"5 - Understanding scripture entails a) the right apprehension of propositional truth and then b) the unmediated apprehension of transcendence, as coveyed through scripture. The purpose of understanding in the first mode is to attain understanding in the second"

What determines "the right apprehension of propositional truth"?

"7 - Disciplic succession conveys knowledge that is not conditioned by human limitations - it is free from the four defects that vitiate "knowledge " by human production (namely - imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality" ---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake --- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert ----a cheating propensity --- our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc"

Yet why is it that priests are so often so corrupt? Similarly, can not simply objective philosophy give this?

"8 - Realized knowledge enables one to explain scripture in a way comprehensible to hearers conditioned by time, place and circumstances, while yet completely preserving the integrity of scripture"

How?

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,

In comparison to what? And don’t you mean the concept of God since we don’t know that any actual gods exist yet?.

You may and the persons you accept as authorities on ontology may not know but that is probably because you have not applied the relevant epistemology for perceiving god - just like if I have not studied physics and none of my authorities have studied physics the nature of physics does not have an existence according to my onotological perspective

To perceive means to be aware of or have an understanding through the senses. Since the actual existence of any such thing has yet to be established your assertion here is at least dubious and at best very premature. .

If you have some argument why spiritual things are not perceivable, or why matter, as you seem to be defining it, and perceivability are synonomous this would be the opportunity to reveal it - otherwise we are still left stumbling around in reasons explained in the above response

Ontology can be said to study conceptions of reality and you seem to be implying actual reality; there is a distinction. .

Outside of discussions of religious phenomena, i f a person cannot fathom the implications of ontology they tend to assume that what they perceive with their senses (according to the epistemologies they apply) is objective reality and everything else is a conceptionof reality

Well no you are not free to assert that. Attempts to assert that knowledge can be acquired through faith for example is an age old issue and is still being debated. While the religionists want to believe that knowledge of existence can be acquired through some mechanism other than empiricism they have yet to prove their case. And really the thrust of your thread here is an attempt to assert that this has occurred – it has not. .

Where did I use the word "faith"? If a person applies an epistemology to understand car engine repair is that the same epistemology one can use to perceive the interactions of electrons?

No I’m afraid you’ve severely screwed up your example here. Nice attempt though. Being aware and perceiving him is entirely independent of whether he agrees or not. Actually meeting him is another matter, but hardly a matter of epistemology..

Actually I was referring to directly perceiving the president, and unless you have some special mystic ability to make the president materialise in front of you or exert metal hypnosis over his 10 000 secretaries, I think the process of directly perceiving the president is entirely dependant on whether he wants to see you or not

The analogy breaks down because knowledge of existence in every known case is not dependent on the permission of the entity being sought. One of the key arguments against the existence of a god is where he seems to want us to know him yet doesn’t make his existence unambiguous; this doesn’t make any sense, but is fully consistent with his non-existence. .

So in other words if you extend an invitation for the president to come to dinner this evening and he doesn't turn up it indicates the president doesn't exist? What epistemology did you apply to arrive at the ontological perspective that god doesn't exist - I don't suppose you applied the epistemology for perceiving god so your assumptions are predictable

This isn’t valid since it is the knowledge that is in question not the way the alleged knowledge is published. .

So in otherwords if one wants to be a doctor it is not an issue whether you learn from a qualified medical practioner or not - that is there is no question of perceiving who is qualified in a field of kowledge and who is not qualified?

Again this isn’t an epistemological issue but one of doctrine and institution. How does the recipient know he is being given knowledge rather than myth? And this is also a circular argument; the epistemological issue here is whether divine revelation occurs, and here it is being assumed. .

Because you cannot understand the implications of the first point, you bring your misconceptions to the second point - the success of an epistemology is that it grants the ontology , just like the success of medical school is that one can actually perceive the nature of disease, etc and treat it - if one cannot perceive who is and isn't qualified in a field of knowledge, which really doesn't have much to do with institutional rubber stamping, it all appears dubious

No, that is part of the epistemological debate, you are quoting doctrine.
And really the rest of your post makes the same basic errors.

Its doctrinal to point out that in an epistemological field some persons are more outstanding than others in establishing and refining the epistemology?
You are assuming that the epistemology has no ontological basis - you make this assumption not because you have actually applied the related epistemology, but because the ontological conclusion disturbs your preconceived values.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:

"1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession"
This only produces a system which exists to perpetuate itself. That is to say, by organizing the priesthood upon such principles, we find that the priesthood becomes corrupt. It also requires the sincerity of each priest in the succession and on obedience to said sincere priests, neither of which will occur to any level of perfection.

Therefore sincerity is the said qualification - there were several points that I didn't include for the sake of making it more comprehensible - one is
"Scripture must be accepted "as it is". Its authority must always be respected. There must be no addition or subtraction, and no distortion. When scripture is so understood, ther meaning of scripture becomes "self evident" and the texts become "self luminous"
What you say about human fallibility is essentially true, therefore god or god's representatives frequently appear to re -establish or reform religion - see point 3

"2 - Disciplic succession has its origin in specific foundational , paradigmatic experiences of divine revelation. Scripture contains the record of these experiences as well as of important subsequent instantations of those experiences"
There divine revelatory experiences cannot be trusted unless the claims of God are philosophically or empirically investigatable, nor are the reports of claims of God (scriptures) to be accepted without proof of the experience existing as such.

Proof comes from practical application - practical application comes from a foundation in theoretical knowledge - theoretical knowledge comes from qualified teachers (ie those who have attained to the level of practical application) - how do you propose that physics be proven to a person who will not accept a shred of theory without first having direct perception

"3 - Disciplic succession also follows the understanding of revelation by certain great souls, whose realisations and actions are normative"
See above (immediatly).

There how is it possible to teach anything without the dichotomy of student/teacher?

"4 - The purpose of disciplic sucecssion is to reprise the original revelatory experience. In other words the experience is recreated without loss or dimunition in each generation"
Recreated in what way? Actually? Or in terms of the knowledge granted?

Each successive generation is granted the same ontological experience according to their ability to apply the relevant epistemology

"5 - Understanding scripture entails a) the right apprehension of propositional truth and then b) the unmediated apprehension of transcendence, as coveyed through scripture. The purpose of understanding in the first mode is to attain understanding in the second"
What determines "the right apprehension of propositional truth"?

The first is theory - the second is prac - in otherwords theory involves knowledge of the qualities of an object thus one can perceive the objects presence or absence.

"7 - Disciplic succession conveys knowledge that is not conditioned by human limitations - it is free from the four defects that vitiate "knowledge " by human production (namely - imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality" ---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake --- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert ----a cheating propensity --- our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc"
Yet why is it that priests are so often so corrupt? Similarly, can not simply objective philosophy give this?

See earlier insertion why priests may fail - basically it arises from incorrectly applying the epistemology - how does objective philosophy overcome these 4 faults of objective human perception?

"8 - Realized knowledge enables one to explain scripture in a way comprehensible to hearers conditioned by time, place and circumstances, while yet completely preserving the integrity of scripture"
How?

Having understood god, scripture then becomes a perfect vehicle of comprehension. IN the absence of that one will not be able to distinguish between a principle and a detail of scripture.

 

[lightgigantic]

What does Vaishnavism entail?

Vaishnavism entails the worship of Visnu as the supreme personality of godhead who has an eternal abode distinct from the temporary material heavens and hells of this creation. Visnu literally means "all pervasive" which is a distinctive characteristic from other personalities.

Do they accept Vishnu as Ishvar? If so what is the position of Siva/Shakti in Vaishnavs?

Visnu is accepted as the isvara and all others are accepted as his servants - so siva is seen as a servant of visnu - there is even a quote - Vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh: "Amongst all Vaisnavas, Lord Siva is the topmost." Lord Siva has his own vaisnava sampradaya (the other three are Lord Brahma, Laxmi, and the 4 kumars).
The difference between visnu and siva is like the difference between milk and yoghurt - essentially they are composed of the same substance (siva is distinct from both the living entity - such as chandra, indra, brahma etc, all of who are living entities who have assumed exulted positions in the material creation, and visnu) but one is seen to be the cause of the other - siva's duty innvolves dealing with the gross material energy (sakti), a duty which is delegated to him by Visnu
One who worships siva as a servant of visnu is a vaisnava - one who worships siva as the isvara is a saivite - generally saivite worship is more popular amongst persons who worship with the idea of material acquisition
A vaishnava wears vertical markings on the body and a saivite/advaitist wears 3 horizontal markings (I have also seen persons who wear both markings but that seems to indicate more of lack of philosophy than anything else)
more at http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/siva.htm

And what of the trinity concept? Brahma, Vishnu and Mahadeva? Do they fall under different schools of dvaita?

They are accepted as the 3 guna avatars, or deities in control of different material qualties for the creation maintenance and destruction of the universe

This is a detailed question and I am not too sure how to answer it simply
anyway you can always check out http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/86/1/Avatar---Categories-of-Incarnations/Page1.html
for a more complete picture

Brahma - passion - is the first living entity (who appears from the body of garbhodakasayi vishnu) in the material creation who establishes the bodies of all others (there an incident that describes how brahma created manu, the first progenitor of human kind, which bears a remarkable similarity between adam and eve) --he creates the physical appartatus of this world - Brahma has an incredible life span that continues through out literally hundreds of thousands universal devastations. Each brahma works with one planetary system (what we perceive of as the universe), and like him there are millions of brahmas overseeing their assigned universes in the material manifestation of Vishnu - the most pious personality in a material creation receives the title of brahma

Siva - ignorance - is assigned the duty for the destruction of the universe, usually at the time of universal devastations

Vishnu - goodness - it is comparitively easy to create something and even easier to destroy it but to maintain it is especially difficult therefore it is the duty of vishnu to maintain the material creation

Under the dvaita school it is accepted that these guna avatars are worshippable in the sense that they represent the managing prowess of visnu, just like an ambassador represents the ruling authority, an is offerred respect not dissimilar to that offerred to the king, although one is fully cognizant that they are the ambassador and not the king.

Also under the dvaita school, siva and brahma are recognized as heading up a disciplic succession for the worship of Visnu

The advaita school tends to advocate that one can worship whoever one wants and that it is all the same because worship is only a means to undersatnd that these personalities are ultimately illusory and manifestations of the undifferentiated eternal potency.

On a more common level people tend to worship these three personalities as a means for auspiciousness since it is a hearty attempt to include all that governs the universe - inother words they don't have a clear idea who is supreme but out of a pious desire not to insult powerful entities they tend to worship them all equally