Philosophy

by Domenic Marbaniang [1] There are three chief epistemological approaches to the study of God, namely, the rational approach, the empirical approach, and the revelational or Sabdic approach. Neither the rational approach nor the empirical approach is theologically effective; it is only through a subjective urge of faith and a rational fideistic appropriation of revelation that one can ever come to know God. The rationalist tradition only leads to a monistic view of divine reality. This is so because with the expulsion of empirical categories, reason is left with nothing other than its own features of unity, transcendence, immutability, universality, and necessity. Thus, one sees in Zeno’s paradoxes that there is a seeming contradiction between the results of rational analysis and that of experience. Zeno showed that plurality and mobility of experience is rationally impossible. In the India peninsula, Gaudapada of the Advaita tradition (8 th century AD), showed through analysis of

From Epistemics of Divine Reality, 2nd Edn. (2010) by Domenic Marbaniang, pp.92,93 While for the Greeks physical reality was a major concern, for the Indians conscious reality was the major concern. While the Greeks tried to find what the unifying basis of all physical reality was as such, the Indians wanted to find what the unifying basis of all conscious reality was as such. The Greeks began from physics and proceeded on to metaphysics. The Indians began from the self, from consciousness, and proceeded on to metaphysics. The Greeks tried to analyze the known in order to understand the known. The Indian analyzed the knower in order to understand the known. Thus, the Indian quest for ultimate reality can be described as a search for a psychological basis of the universe. This has several implications: In the search for the external, one begins with the attempt to first understand the internal, viz. consciousness. Before knowing what is out there, one begins with the

Modernization, contextualization, and indigenization are all good words with proper intention of appeal through being relevant. However, when this is stretched to the point of conformity to the other group's ideals, one lands into danger. 1. It is easy to pull someone down than to pull someone up. 2. It may be necessary for you to bend as far as possible in order to reach out and grasp the one in need of help. But, don't bend so far that you lose your balance and fall into the pit yourself. 3. If one conforms to another's ideals, the point of difference is lost and the appeal fully nullified. Getting off balance while attempting to relate and reach can lead to dilemmas, confusions, skepticisms, and finally fall. So, one needs to be very cautious.

From Epistemics of Divine Reality, 2nd Edn. (2010) by Domenic Marbaniang, pp.92,93 While for the Greeks physical reality was a major concern, for the Indians conscious reality was the major concern. While the Greeks tried to find what the unifying basis of all physical reality was as such, the Indians wanted to find what the unifying basis of all conscious reality was as such. The Greeks began from physics and proceeded on to metaphysics. The Indians began from the self, from consciousness, and proceeded on to metaphysics. The Greeks tried to analyze the known in order to understand the known. The Indian analyzed the knower in order to understand the known. Thus, the Indian quest for ultimate reality can be described as a search for a psychological basis of the universe. This has several implications: In the search for the external, one begins with the attempt to first understand the internal, viz. consciousness. Before knowing what is out there, one begins with the