Books as Source of Truth
One of the comments I listed in my last blog raises an interesting point. The comment I refer to was this:
“There is a common ancient horridly flawed assumption often afoot that if something is written in a book, it must be true or will become so. There is zero basis for that assumption. The first book supposedly ever mass-printed was a bible. Enough said. Books were originally designed to spread words, period. They could be fact, fiction, opinions or folklore.”
Both points are true: most people do trust the printed word. Even though printed does not equal truth.
Now consider the other source of truth that most people trust: Wikipedia. Though we don’t realize it most of the time, even Wikipedia relies on other sources of truth, though not necessarily only printed books. In case you didn’t know it already, this is the Wikipedia philosophy:
“Wikipedia is not ‘truth’, Wikipedia is ‘verifiability’ of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that.”
So is the truth value of Wikipedia the same as books? I’d say No, Wikipedia is a lot more reliable. Because Wikipedia can and does get corrected, way faster than any book. And when people quote information from Wikipedia, they don’t drop names as a “proof” of accuracy (the way most people drop names of famous books and authors). And (this matters a lot in case of subjective topics) while a book is just one person’s view, Wikipedia reflects multiple, often opposing, points of view. Which is why I think that the “In Wikipedia we trust” approach is way less likely to mislead you than trusting an encyclopedia or a book.
Now what does that say about most religions?
It is true many people believe what is stated in books. It is also true that almost always religious teachers would assert, "What is stated in the scriptures has to be accepted." That is not good either. These preachers do damage to everyone, worse, to their own cause.
ReplyDeleteHaving agreed to these points, one can see: no book needs to be taken to be true - whether religious or secular.
Strangely in Eastern mysticism is not for blind acceptance.
Hinduism was ahead of the Buddha in making the same statement with the same clarity of purpose: "Don't have to believe. See the truth yourself." It doesn't come to limelight easily because of the all-round-noise of the Hindu system. The Vedas, the highest authority of Hinduism, declare to this effect: "No scripture, no stated doctrine, not even the Vedas, can express the Supreme Truth. You have to put in your own effort by turning inwards to discover the Absolute Truth. There is no other way." Many later saints of Hinduism have emphasized the same point too.
What to do? Ordinary people want ordinary religion. Ordinary people run after superstitions. Ordinary people think only ordinarily. The essence of spirituality eludes them. Why, it very nearly eludes the advanced seeker too!
Naturally rationalists usually hold a condemning attitude towards religions. It is unfortunate that they are also ignorant about what the core truth is, because they only use their mind to judge everything. They wouldn't admit that ordinary mind, even if rational, is a limited tool. Today's truth can be tomorrow's falsehood! It can be opposite of this too!!
True religion, nay - true spirituality, transcends mind; and until we learn how to empty our mind in order to discover the Absolute, whatever it maybe, we speak about something which we have failed to discover. All that we do is expressing ignorance very knowledgeably!
In spirituality this basis is true: "Discover and prove to yourself the Absolute Truth as it actually is - by emptying your mind. You will know most certainly it is valid" But the rationalist would go by the standard of evaluation set for external happenings. He has no standard at all available to verity the truths of the internal domain - the vast expanse of our mind. We never realize we can discover that our mind is indeed limitless. Unless and until you discover that your mind is limitless, how are you going to admit that my mind is limitless - a truth discovered by me? The rationalist has actually assumed that religions are invalid and he does not accept what he has made is just an assumption.
I am not to make people believe in spirituality. I only state what I find: most rationalists believe in what they think is truth, limited by their bounded knowledge, their background or paradigm and their restricted ability. And they think material sciences' success is a trump card that is unbeatable. Let them hold on to their faith! Faith rules everywhere ;-)