First Principles – A Confession Posted in: Perfection in Seeming Imperfection
A confession … or at least an explanation for my Hare Krishna friends who wonder why that previously humble/submissive Divyasimha das now sometimes refuses to bow to authority of guru, sadhu and sastra.
Well, it all comes down to first principles.
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption … are from first cause attitudes commonly referred to as a priori terms and arguments, which are contrasted to a posteriori terms, reasoning, or arguments, in that the former are simply assumed and exist prior to the reasoning process, and the latter are deduced or inferred after the initial reasoning process. First principles are generally treated in the realm of philosophy known as epistemology but are an important factor in any metaphysical speculation.
For me the first principle (cannot be proved, yet I choose to believe it) is simply
God exists and is all-perfect, all-powerful, all-beautiful, and all-loving*.
And on the basis of this first principle my foundational conviction, almost a first principle in-of-itself (call it metaphysical speculation if you will), is therefore
Because God is all perfect, everything that emanates from God is likewise all-perfect. Us and this world included
This conviction leads me to resist, even challenge, philosophical propositions, whatever their source (including those quoted from religious texts or words attributed to saints and seers) that sit uncomfortably with, what to speak in blatant contradiction. Everything that emanates from God is all-perfect. Us and this world included is the core conviction I measure every proposition against.
So, for example, when someone characterises the world as a purely negative place ‘a prison-house for the rebellious souls’ (nothing good to be had here), or the soul as a fundamentally flawed entity, or explains karma along the lines of action/reaction (Newton’s 3rd law) or punishment/reward, I am going to resist such things. All the time I’m looking to understand everything, every emanation, in terms of the beauty and perfection that is God. And if I cannot imagine it that way, to nevertheless believe it must be so.
From my side, it is uncomfortable to find myself apparently at odds with revered authorities. Perhaps sometimes I am only rejecting an understanding of a concept rather than rejecting the concept outright? Karma for example, I don’t reject, but I prefer to understand more as a creative mechanism for the divine soul rather than it being a law of action and reaction. And for me the bondage of karma (karma-bandhana) is not about ‘karma’ having power over the soul, but the soul’s attachment to the fruits of their thinking/feeling/willing … which is the divine prerogative of the soul anyway and therefore compatible with my foundational convictions. Other times I might reject a concept completely.
* Perhaps you do not accept ‘God exists and is all-perfect, all-powerful, all-beautiful, and all-loving’ as a first principle? After all a first principle is an assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. And I am making my case on the basis of if-it-were-true. But if it is not true then of course my subsequent reasoning all becomes null and void 🙂