Gentlemen,

I've been enjoying tremendously your dispassionate, cordial and intelligent exchange. A veritable rarity in our notorious cyber niche here. I hope you don't mind if I also offer a few comments.

Dec 9, 2012 -- 11:55AM, gangajal wrote:

It is not necessary to believe in either theistic or supernatural things. One should also not close one's mind to these possibilities provided these things are personally experienced. Some extreme forms of Advaita Vedanta like Ajatavada, for example, is indifferent to Deities. Nevertheless, the question of how can one completely remove all dissatisfaction in an imperfect relative world remains? A famous mantra in one of the Upanishads raises this question. It raises the question about how one can be completely satisfied in a relative world since all things come to an end in such a world? 

Indeed, the famous Udana passage of Buddha addresses this very dilemma (highlight added):

"There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. What is dependant, that also moves; what is independent does not move." (Udana 8:3)

The way the Buddha-dhātu is described in some suttas is not all too different from the way Brahman/Ātman is described in Advaita Vedanta and God in apophatic (negative) Abrahamic theologies, particularly in Jewish and Islamic theology. All of the foregoing philosophies could be completely liberated from deities and angelic beings whilst still logically hinging on some profound metaphysical notion of final escape from the cycle of samsara, or earthly plight. Whilst still incorporating an apophatic notion of the Divine.

Personally, I feel, scholars of comparative religion have done a great disservice by perpetuating another false dichotomy (and stating this is not to deny other near-insurmountable differences). Namely that which is drawn between so-called "nondualist" Dharmic traditions and "dualist" Abrahamic traditions. As if it were that simple. Abrahamic traditions tend to be equally enormous and complex, incorporating ancient (whilst not always mainstream) traditions of apophatic theology (as opposed to anthropomorphic theology), and Dharmic traditions such as Hinduism include an explicitly "dvaitin" (i.e. "dualist") tradition.

Let's put it in a more personal way. For the record, I haven’t got the slightest clue about God! I admit knowing nothing of the Unknowable. Yet somehow my heart rests in deep satisfaction born of my utter cluelessness. The cluelessness is strangely liberating. Blissfully ignorant though I may be of Its nature, yet I am stirred to my depths when certain scriptures (both "Abrahamic" and "Dharmic") hint at that Essence which is shrouded behind an impenetrable veil. No doubt niggles me as to its "existence" (another anthropomorphic term -- let's say "nothing less than existence"). I am led to humbly acquiesce in the compelling truth that there is that ’Something’ that exceeds everything that I can ever hope to muster in Its praise – the most lyrical verses of poetry, the most mystical of meditations, the most soul-stirring of human experiences, the most awesome of spiritual feelings. Even the abstrusest of allegories.

Apophatic (negative) theology is a sort of anti-theology where even the greatest attributes and characterizations invoked in that Entity's praise tell us not what It is, but what It is not. Let me freely use the word "God" in an apophatic sense. God is nothing less than our brightest and deepest ideas. But neither can such limited notions capture God. It is the only known theology that doesn’t really get lost in the quagmire of intellectualizations and gratuitous doctrinal hairsplitting. The way I see it is we really have three choices. Either to adopt an essentially egocentric worldview where everything can be known by man, given enough time. A humbler worldview which accepts the existence of something which is beyond (read: greater than) the greatest humanly knowable truths. For the non-anthropomorphic theists (whether nondualists or dualists), that undefinable something is Alláh, YHVH, Eternal Brahman / Ātman, God. Or a third choice of undecisiveness where one comes to accept an uncertainty between options 1 and 2.

Baya ibn Pakudah (a Medieval Jewish philosopher in the Islamic world) glorified our profound ignorance of God’s Essence: “The essence of your knowledge of Him, O my brother, is your firm admission that you are completely ignorant of His true essence.” In Church history similar ideas are found in the spiritual tapestry evocatively painted by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. But negative theology is in fact way older. “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” was God’s answer to Moses when he inquired of His name. “I am that I am.” (Or “I will be that I will be.”) (Exodus 3:12). Basically, “I am that I am” is the Biblical equivalent of the Hindu “neti neti” (“not this, not that”) which is a mantra of Jyana Yoga found in the Upanishads. The “neti neti” mantra repeats the powerfully simple acknowledgement of the namelessness of God. No name nor concept, no matter how superlative or wonderful, due to the limitations of human language and comprehension, can adequately describe God. Hence God is “not this” and “not that”. God just, well… is! The Qur’anic equivalent is found in verse 6:103. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision.” Guru Nanak, the sage regarded as the founder of Sikhism, said: “If anyone presumes to describe God, he shall be known the greatest fool of fools” (Guru Granth Sahib, 26). Bahá’u’lláh revealed in the Arabic Hidden Words: “…souls shall be perturbed as they make mention of Me. For minds cannot grasp Me nor hearts contain Me.”

Sorry for the lengthy ramblings!

LilWabbit

Lilwabbit,

Good to see you again. :)  I will try to return with a response sooner rather than later, I'm afraid I've used up my posting time for now.