THE MEANING OF TRUE WISDOM
THE MEANING OF TRUE WISDOM
True wisdom is knowing and understanding the Truth or Reality of things, especially the meaning of existence, the origin of the Universe, and of life. It must be based on both knowledge and experiences that confirm the certainty of the subject of inquiry, or problem in hand. It is knowing what is true and what is not; what is right and what is wrong; and knowing what is the best answer or choice, if there are many choices. Wisdom cannot be based on empirical knowledge, theories and assumptions.
Let us consider the most basic question that divides humanity: Does GOD exist? This question is fundamental because it leads to many other consequential questions: Was the Universe and all life in it created? Did we evolve from chimpanzees or are we descendants of the first created man ( Adam according to the Abrahamic religions )? And many more.
Half of the people of the world do NOT believe in God, while the other half do.
If GOD exists, then the unbelievers, atheists and humanists, even the scholars and learned ones among them, are definitely not wise, because they fail to acknowledge that their own Creator exists. Which also means that they have ignored and disobeyed many things that GOD has asked us to do.
Likewise, if GOD does NOT exist, then the believers, including the prophets, saints, monks, priests, rabbis, swamis, gurus, shaykhs and scholars, cannot be wise because they believe, worship and pattern their entire lives according to the laws laid down by a non-existent GOD.
Many believers make huge sacrifices to please GOD, forsaking an “enjoyable” life for a strict and disciplined one. Many sacrifice the opportunity to get married and have children, to become celibates in the service of GOD. Some even give up their lives in return for the promise of Heaven.
If GOD does NOT exist, all these sacrifices are for nothing, and their lives have been illusory and they actually have been deceived by whatever teachings or religions they follow.
True wisdom therefore starts with knowing the reality of whether GOD exists or not, and if HE ( not referring to a male god, but a sexless god ) does exist, what is HIS real nature; which is HIS real scriptures; and therefore which is HIS real religion? Who is HE?
And if there is GOD, then is HE one, or three-in-one, or many-in-one? Does HE have a Son, or many sons, or children, or none at all?
If the Truth/Reality is that HE is One, with no son or children ( as Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Bahais and others believe ), then the other believers cannot be wise, since they wrongly believe that GOD is a duality, or trinity, or multiplicity, or begets a son or children, which HE does not.
Conversely, if HE is indeed 3-in-1 ( as most Christians believe ) or is of other than absolute unity; or if HE does beget a son or children, then the strict monotheists cannot be wise, because they fail to grasp the true nature of GOD.
We can continue this argument to the other aspects of theology, and to the other aspects of religions – eg. reincarnation, life in the next world ( hereafter ), etc.
Taking a cue from the humanist movement, we must be brave enough to subject even religious dogmas to the test of intelligent inquiry, applying scientific principles and methods. It is the only way to settle the score between believers and unbelievers. The disagreement between believers themselves can also be settled with logic and reason.
( Humanists believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing GOD, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. They believe that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. In their judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not pass the test of scientific evidence. – Adapted from The Humanist Manifesto, American Humanist Society ).
Science is impartial and unprejudiced. However, scientists and believers can be biased and prejudiced, since they are only humans. They can even be dogmatic and unyielding with their views.
Often the results of scientific observations and experiments give rise to different conclusions, when different groups with differing interests or objectives analyze the same scientific data or observations.
Often those with different views or interpretations are accused of being pseudo-scientists, when in fact one or more views are tenable, given the available data. Hopefully, the correct answer will become obvious when more data or observations are made.
Often conclusions are made after certain assumptions are consciously or subconsciously interpolated into the summation process.
For example, atheist/nontheist/humanist scientists assert that there is overwhelming evidence for the Darwinian theory of evolution that they now refer to it as the Law of Evolution. Yet there are equally eminent scientists who, after applying scientific reasoning, believe that while evolution does occur, as scientifically observed, it must be propelled by intelligent design ( read Creator, GOD ), not by random mutations and natural selection as proposed by Darwin.
Darwinian evolutionary theory has never satisfactorily explained the creation of new genus and species, but only variations within each species – something current knowledge of polymorphism can easily explain.
Creative evolutionary theory or intelligent design, on the other hand, includes both the creation of new species as well as intelligently propelled evolution. Both are handiworks of the Creator. [ This subject will be discussed in detail in a future article ].
The point is that the atheist scientists are mistaken if they think that it’s a no-brainer and the game is over – in their favour, of course – when it comes to scrutinizing religious beliefs with scientific study.
The challenge to believers, on the other hand, is to prove that more of their beliefs ( even if not all ) are scientifically valid.
True wisdom is knowing and understanding the Truth or Reality of things, especially the meaning of existence, the origin of the Universe, and of life. It must be based on both knowledge and experiences that confirm the certainty of the subject of inquiry, or problem in hand. It is knowing what is true and what is not; what is right and what is wrong; and knowing what is the best answer or choice, if there are many choices. Wisdom cannot be based on empirical knowledge, theories and assumptions.
Let us consider the most basic question that divides humanity: Does GOD exist? This question is fundamental because it leads to many other consequential questions: Was the Universe and all life in it created? Did we evolve from chimpanzees or are we descendants of the first created man ( Adam according to the Abrahamic religions )? And many more.
Half of the people of the world do NOT believe in God, while the other half do.
If GOD exists, then the unbelievers, atheists and humanists, even the scholars and learned ones among them, are definitely not wise, because they fail to acknowledge that their own Creator exists. Which also means that they have ignored and disobeyed many things that GOD has asked us to do.
Likewise, if GOD does NOT exist, then the believers, including the prophets, saints, monks, priests, rabbis, swamis, gurus, shaykhs and scholars, cannot be wise because they believe, worship and pattern their entire lives according to the laws laid down by a non-existent GOD.
Many believers make huge sacrifices to please GOD, forsaking an “enjoyable” life for a strict and disciplined one. Many sacrifice the opportunity to get married and have children, to become celibates in the service of GOD. Some even give up their lives in return for the promise of Heaven.
If GOD does NOT exist, all these sacrifices are for nothing, and their lives have been illusory and they actually have been deceived by whatever teachings or religions they follow.
True wisdom therefore starts with knowing the reality of whether GOD exists or not, and if HE ( not referring to a male god, but a sexless god ) does exist, what is HIS real nature; which is HIS real scriptures; and therefore which is HIS real religion? Who is HE?
And if there is GOD, then is HE one, or three-in-one, or many-in-one? Does HE have a Son, or many sons, or children, or none at all?
If the Truth/Reality is that HE is One, with no son or children ( as Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Bahais and others believe ), then the other believers cannot be wise, since they wrongly believe that GOD is a duality, or trinity, or multiplicity, or begets a son or children, which HE does not.
Conversely, if HE is indeed 3-in-1 ( as most Christians believe ) or is of other than absolute unity; or if HE does beget a son or children, then the strict monotheists cannot be wise, because they fail to grasp the true nature of GOD.
We can continue this argument to the other aspects of theology, and to the other aspects of religions – eg. reincarnation, life in the next world ( hereafter ), etc.
Taking a cue from the humanist movement, we must be brave enough to subject even religious dogmas to the test of intelligent inquiry, applying scientific principles and methods. It is the only way to settle the score between believers and unbelievers. The disagreement between believers themselves can also be settled with logic and reason.
( Humanists believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing GOD, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. They believe that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. In their judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not pass the test of scientific evidence. – Adapted from The Humanist Manifesto, American Humanist Society ).
Science is impartial and unprejudiced. However, scientists and believers can be biased and prejudiced, since they are only humans. They can even be dogmatic and unyielding with their views.
Often the results of scientific observations and experiments give rise to different conclusions, when different groups with differing interests or objectives analyze the same scientific data or observations.
Often those with different views or interpretations are accused of being pseudo-scientists, when in fact one or more views are tenable, given the available data. Hopefully, the correct answer will become obvious when more data or observations are made.
Often conclusions are made after certain assumptions are consciously or subconsciously interpolated into the summation process.
For example, atheist/nontheist/humanist scientists assert that there is overwhelming evidence for the Darwinian theory of evolution that they now refer to it as the Law of Evolution. Yet there are equally eminent scientists who, after applying scientific reasoning, believe that while evolution does occur, as scientifically observed, it must be propelled by intelligent design ( read Creator, GOD ), not by random mutations and natural selection as proposed by Darwin.
Darwinian evolutionary theory has never satisfactorily explained the creation of new genus and species, but only variations within each species – something current knowledge of polymorphism can easily explain.
Creative evolutionary theory or intelligent design, on the other hand, includes both the creation of new species as well as intelligently propelled evolution. Both are handiworks of the Creator. [ This subject will be discussed in detail in a future article ].
The point is that the atheist scientists are mistaken if they think that it’s a no-brainer and the game is over – in their favour, of course – when it comes to scrutinizing religious beliefs with scientific study.
The challenge to believers, on the other hand, is to prove that more of their beliefs ( even if not all ) are scientifically valid.
Comments
Very interesting commentary on The Meaning Of True Wisdom but I will not relate it to GOD or Spirituality too soon.
Wisdom itself need to be defined prior to relating it to GOD or even Humanity.
To seek wisdom itself is a quest, a challenge, a task, a truly and extremely difficult task. It can take lots and lots of energy to attain it, if it come....it can come effortlessly....if and when it comes. I do not know, but I believed it has to come from being insightful before wisdom come.
Is wisdom inborn？Can it be developed? It it bestowed？Can it be enhanced? Can it be sought?
For sure, wisdom, if attained or bestowed or available is and should be application for mankind. If it is for mankind alone, it means not true wisdom. Should it not be more universal and hence it then become True Wisdom?
Wisdom is beyond reasoning nor is it measurable, debatable and not even scientically dissected.
Are there parameters or boundaries or level of wisdom? Is it related to enlightenment? Is there similarity?
What is wisdom and what is True wisdom?
Your comment relate True Wisdom with GOD and Sprituality. Is there any relationship? Is there GOD in the first place before we relate True Wisdom with Him.
Just like the argument between EVOLUTION and INTELLIGENT DESIGN....it will be never ending. Since it is going to be a never ending debate, is it wise or not wise to continue the debate?
If True Wisdom relates to GOD and Spirituality, or even religion....where are we now as far as secular states are concerned. Similarly, if true wisdom is not related to GOD, what are the state of affairs with non secular nations? Same.
I agree with your view on the topic in hand to some degree...but,
You mentioned Darwinian evolutionary theory has never satisfactorily explained the creation of new genus and species, but only variations within each species – something current knowledge of polymorphism can easily explain.
God theory also fail to answer to many scientific findings i.e. earth has been around for at least 4.5 billion years instead of as described in some religious books.
The characteristic of god(s) is also fuzzy and different even amnong believers. One's so-call wisdom in one religion may not be wisdom to another.
I guess no one party can argue convincingly on the matter of god's existence or not existence thus far.
On this blog, you have written:
"True wisdom is knowing and understanding the Truth or Reality of things, especially the meaning of existence, the origin of the Universe, and of life. It must be based on both knowledge and experiences that confirm the certainty of the subject of inquiry, or problem in hand. It is knowing what is true and what is not; what is right and what is wrong; and knowing what is the best answer or choice, if there are many choices. Wisdom cannot be based on empirical knowledge, theories and assumptions."
I basically agree with this statement, though I'm inclined to put it somewhat differently. True wisdom is knowing, understanding and realizing the Truth of things, beings, conditions, situations, events and life, including the inter-relationships of all that is.
I'm curious, though, about what you mean by
"It is knowing what is true and what is not; what is right and what is wrong; and knowing what is the best answer or choice, if there are many choices."
Are you suggesting that there are answers and choices that are what might be called universally true or false, right or wrong, best or worst? Or is it your understanding that the wise person will be capable of knowing what is true or false, right or wrong, best or worst in any particular situation, and that it is possible, even likely, for different wise beings to arrive at different answers in what might seem to be the same situations?
In your New Age gurus article you extensively considered the question of the existence of God:
"Let us consider the most basic question that divides humanity: Does GOD exist? This question is fundamental because it leads to many other consequential questions: Was the Universe and all life in it created? Did we evolve from chimpanzees or are we descendants of the first created man ( Adam according to the Abrahamic religions )? And many more.
Half of the people of the world do NOT believe in God, while the other half do."
I realize you were writing within the confines of your allotted space and may have not have elaborated as extensively as you might have liked to. At the same time, though, it seems to me that you have limited your consideration in a way that all too many do, regardless of which side of the question they are on and regardless of whether or not they do so consciously or unconsciously.
In order to provide an accurate assessment of how many do or do not believe God exists, there needs to be either complete knowledge, understanding and agreement about what or who God is, or there needs to be an acknowledgement and understanding amongst all of those participating in the survey, whether conducting or responding to it, that the question of who or what God is does not have a universal or "correct" answer. I doubt that any such survey has ever been, nor ever could be, devised and conducted.
If that is indeed the case, it seems to me that it is unfair and nonproductive to argue the existence of God by pitting the two sides, as you (and many others) seem to have delineated them, against one another in such a black and white fashion. Doing so provides almost no allowance for the wide variety of personal concepts and experiences of God that are extant among those who might claim to believe, or admit to belief, in the existence of God. Neither does it allow for the great variance among those who claim to believe God does not exist. There is a variously told story I have heard about the atheist expounding on why he does not believe in God, and the mystic who replied: "I don't believe in the same god you don't believe in either." I think this captures very well the essence of the difficulties inherent in both the surveys and the arguments.
You wrote:
"Science is impartial and unprejudiced. However, scientists and believers can be, since they are only humans. They can even be dogmatic and unyielding with their views."
I assume you meant to write: "However, scientists and believers can be partial and prejudiced, since they are only humans." Perhaps you'll want to edit your blog to that effect.
You wrote:
"Darwinian evolutionary theory has never satisfactorily explained the creation of new genus and species, but only variations within each species - something current knowledge of polymorphism can easily explain."
Because Darwinian evolutionary theory is constantly evolving, as it were, to accommodate new evidence as it is found, analyzed and interpreted, the theory itself is always open to question and revision according to the ideals (if not the flawed human practice) of the scientific method. Thus, it would be more accurate and more fair to state that: "Darwinian evolutionary theory has not yet satisfactorily explained..." I realize, though, that changing the wording as I've suggested would leave open the possibility that someday evolutionary theory might actually evolve to the point where it can convincingly explain the creation of new genus and species, and that perhaps you might not be open to doing that because it would weaken your argument.
You wrote:
"Creative evolutionary theory or intelligent design, on the other hand, includes both the creation of new species as well as intelligently propelled evolution. Both are handiworks of the Creator. [ This subject will be discussed in detail in a future article ]."
I'll be most interested in reading your more detailed discussion of this subject. It seems to me, as one who walks both paths, that those on the path of science and those on the path of mysticism could peacefully coexist in a mutually productive and beneficial manner if people on both sides would focus their attention and energy on allowing and helping this to come about rather than focusing on the distinctions and differences between them so as to continually drive themselves further apart. The methods of mysticism and the methods of science operate in different realms of Reality, the material and the non-material, and neither can operate successfully in the realm of the other. There really is no valid way to scrutinize religious beliefs with scientific study according to the standards of the scientific method, nor is there any valid way to prove that religious beliefs are scientifically valid. It is part of the mystery of existence and of life that the material and the non-material coexist and interact as they do, and that mystery will not be unraveled by modes and methods confined to one realm or the other.
You wrote:
"As a result, even Sufism has been corrupted by the New Agers who have adopted certain Sufi practices without becoming Muslims first.
The whirling sufi dance, for example, is a popular esoteric practice among certain non-Muslim "Sufi" groups in US. At best, these are pseudo-Sufis. From being a 1400-year-old spiritual tradition, Sufism in now "New Age". But then, in the US, anything goes!"
May I point out, first of all, that these practitioners whom you label as "pseudo-Sufis" are not at all unique to the United States. They are also practicing in various countries in Europe, Scandinavia, the Middle East, South America and in Russia, Canada and Australia. Thus, your accusation that "in the US, anything goes!" seems to be uninformed and is unfair.
I will admit that much of what supposedly passes for non-Muslim Sufism is not really Sufism. At the same time, though, I will defend the essence of the teachings and practices of Universal Sufism that Hazrat Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan brought to the United States, to Europe and to South America in the early 1900s - from India! Although his Universal Sufism does not insist upon the five pillars of Islam, its ideals still call for Islam - for submission to God - regardless of which organized or individual path one might follow to attain that goal. I will also contend that those who truly practice and strive toward the ideals of Universal Sufism are practicing Sufis as much as, if not more so than, the nominal Muslims (including nominal Muslim Sufis) who go through the motions of "playing at" being Muslims without truly striving toward and submitting to God.
There are countless examples of nominal Muslims who have perverted the message of Islam and the example of the Prophet (PBUH) to live depraved lives and justify all sorts of atrocities. The same is true for nominal Christians and Jews. There are nominal Buddhists, Hindus of every stripe, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and others who fall far short of the ideals of their claimed spiritual paths. It is unfair and non-productive to compare the nominal adherents of one belief system with the ideals of another belief system. Every religion, every spiritual path, every mystical path has its high ideals, its devoted practitioners who strive to adhere to and practice those ideals, and the hoards of nominal practitioners who submit only to their human egos rather than to God. I'll also include here that, in like manner, the path of science has it's high ideals, its devoted practitioners who strive to adhere to and practice those ideals, and it too has many who fall far short of the ideals of the scientific method.
It is one thing to indulge in comparative religion and study the ideals of the various spiritual paths. It is quite another thing to start comparing those who claim to be followers of one path with those who claim to be followers of another, especially since it is very difficult to determine who actually qualifies to be counted as a true practitioner of any particular path - as one who really believes in and practices all that is required on that path, and constantly strives towards the highest ideals of that path. In fact, it is a very grand claim on the part of anyone to state "I am a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Sufi" and it can be reasonably argued that it is somewhat doubtful that anyone who would make such a claim actually is. It might also be worthwhile contemplating how reasonable and accurate it is for anyone to state "I am a scientist" which implies faithfully following the standards of the scientific method without biases, whether personal or institutional or commercial.
I had been following your column in The Star on/off basis. I am interested however to learn the Qi Gong technique/method. Do you teach it regularly?
Also you mentioned quite a number of time about Sufism, which I am highly interested. How and where do I start? Do you have a group or guru that you regularly refer to?
If you don't want to post a reply on your blog, appreciate if you can email me at abang1605@yahoo.com.
Thanks, Faizal
Read yr article in the star about Siddhas, looked up yr info n found this blog, Hoping for info on the Nadi reader Ramesh u mentioned. Been looking for a Nadi reader but worried about getting false info.
If u have time pls drop me an email on Ramesh, much appreciated.
Thank you, take care.