Religion
And Santosh continues…
It is all about how man tried to perceive the universe. It is more about his quest about his own roots, the origin, cause and purpose of his own existence, the final destination and the ultimate goal (if such a thing exists) of this very thing called life.
This quest, a direct resultant of man’s curiosity and intellectual thirst has persisted in him right from the time civilization was born. Thus as he was learning to make wheel, he was also laying down the fundamental principles of philosophy. This is where, da praveen, I am seeing the first grains of what is called Religion- A term, as I see it, unalloyed, free from the dust and debris, the modern definition of the term carries with it- here let us see Man’s genuine quest for the ultimate truth of being.
Thus happened, in Indus valley, where the oldest civilization sprang up, made social set up, way of life, transformed through ages, made temples, buildings, pottery and wheel, developed mathematics, science, arts and medicine whereas reflecting underneath of all these were strong currents of his inward quest. (we dont have to discuss the historical validity of the Aryan invasion theory. As such these labels and their historical chronology are immaterial. Here let us just see man as man, for it was the development of human race. Man in the absolute sense has no claims to make regarding his original abode).
A research into the life and thoughts of earlier Indian society will reveal a lot of facts. First and foremost is the Freedom of thought that existed in its absolute sense .The very motto of the Rig Veda - one of the earliest and majestic hymns produced in the Vedic age is, “Let come noble thoughts from any direction what so ever”!!
Several schools of thoughts existed at that time. Contemplation, argumentation and discussions were tools of establishing the principles. Every fact and every new theory was put to test, experimentation and reasoning. Even the process of thinking and reasoning has been researched upon and systems of yoga and meditation were developed.
Sanscrit language with all its grammatical superiority & structural strength was a great contribution of this age. This became the medium of sankhyam, tharkam, meemamsa - all these well-structured and scientific tools of logic and reasoning and logistics towards the ultimate human goal. All these thoughts and deductions were put to experimentation and the ardent followers had come up with their results followed by detailed analysis and validations.
Any development in sciences will always lay down newer and newer building bricks in the social construction. The Vedas as divided into four systems by sage Vyasa and those became the constitution of the civilization that henceforth florished in this land. The concept of God was strongly argued for and against, and the Upanishads came up. Yes, The Upanishads… The greatest work of human intelligence and the most brilliant pieces of logical thoughts. It was an all-time triumph of humanity in the field of philosophy and in his search for truth.
The puranas later developed, the three wonderful epics in this era are the Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavata. Dramas in sanscrit and prakrit brought these down to the masses. The concept of bhakti and dharma-artha-kama-and-moksha got established through these works with strong philosophical backing. The concept of values in life, higher meaning of life, the principles like “mata pitha guru daivam…” and “janani janma bhoomishcha…” all reached the common man in the form of living embodiments.
Common man ’saw’ God, philosophers discussed God, Vedantis pursued God and the ones like Buddha perceived God… All were free… to go the way they like. And they did go. Their experiences did make their marks in the building bricks of the society. Some or most in the form of cults. Yet the wheels did run and the pursuit went on and on.
Down the masses many-where, values were getting degenerated. This always happens in the society. Many practices became mere rituals and distorted concepts crept in when arrogance and base instincts in man took the upper hand. The caste atrocities as such are the best examples. Yet there was a force… a force in the works of the ancient Man that bound them together into a common civilization which, seen in total is simply glorious.
And this life… it is this life of freedom, honest and sincere pursuit towards truth, the readiness to put one’s own thoughts to test before facts, readiness to accept the new, on being convinced, and the strength to pursue what you are convinced about, against all odds, this life of strength. This is, for me, the essence of religion. This is my religion. This is the one that existed in India and remains still eternal. They call it Hindu religion. The word could remain or not, it is just a label. Still, if you choose it, by name, then this what I have described above is my definition of Hinduism.
Da, here each man lives his own religion. He thinks. He experiments, he proceeds. Religion for one lies in ones own instincts… in one’s own heart. When he surrenders this to the one self who he considers the higher self, The Guru, who shall instruct him further, he becomes the sishya. Some walk their own way, still they walk, and that is the point. That is the strength. That is religion.
This force is natural. It is there in every man. It knows no geographic or cultural boundaries. In fact it is an act of going beyond boundaries. And this force, this is the only common bond in all these pursuits. And this goes by definition of the term… Religion. Eda… that is it. The very word religion can be given only this one meaning. And thus it exists in its core in every man, and is beyond all labels. And it is this force that comes out as religion of every man.
Thus in truth Religion is universally one, da. This is the concept of secularism. And this is the concept of religion too. Both are exactly one and the same. Though both are in today’s language misnomers.
MadMan said:
And this life… it is this life of freedom, honest and sincere pursuit towards truth, the readiness to put one’s own thoughts to test before facts, readiness to accept the new, on being convinced, and the strength to pursue what you are convinced about, against all odds, this life of strength. This is, for me, the essence of religion. This is my religion.
So why are so many millions of people praying to a stone idol in temples? Are they all seriously deluded?
rajesh malhotra said:
hey… it is easy mad, they can peep through the symbol to see the reality it represents.
praveen said:
MadMan,
I dont see how the people worshipping the idol are any more deluded than the others who abhor it. Idol worship serves as a personal pointer to the infinite. Its like school children, who wont comprehend quantum mechanics and special theory of relativity, but have go through copernicus, galelio and newton before even reaching einstein and heisenberg. Majority of them studying just to score marks and most of them leave school happy with newtonian physics. Incomplete, yet serving their purpose.
sumitra said:
On the independence day and republic day, The first citizen of india, the PM, and the entire battalion in Redfort salutes the national flag.Tens of millions of Indian population takes the salute through out the country and abroad.Are They all deluded , Mad?
Or, may be yes, , they are all in delusion, we two are the only wise persons,isnt it..mad…?chalo,khush?
MadMan said:
What on earth does the national flag have to do with religion, sumitra? Are you ascribing supernatural powers to our flag? :p
And praveen, I have no idea what “personal pointer to the infinite” means.
Now excuse me while I go pray to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which since we can’t prove doesn’t exist, has to be out there.
praveen said:
Madman,
The pointer concept is simple, if only you are open to understand it. I know that you run a good restaurant and seen your restaurant symbol on dishwares in which you serve food, so does the shiok food wesbite. Why do you have that symbol? Let me try to guess, When people look at that symbol, you want to remember the nice time they had in your restaurant, how good the food was there and so on. So when people see the symbol, they recognise the idea behind it, they dont just see the symbol. In short, your symbol represents your restaurant, even though the symbol is not your restaurant. Similar again with the national flag, it denotes the idea of nationhood, not just a multicolour piece of cloth. That is the concept.
Indeed you can pray to the invisible pink unicorn (again another “personal pointer” for your atheism? :-p) with abandon, and I dont scorn it. If you steadfastly believe in it, so be it. I am happy for you.
Yazad said:
There’s some confusion in what Santosh says. And this life… it is this life of freedom, honest and sincere pursuit towards truth, the readiness to put one’s own thoughts to test before facts, readiness to accept the new, on being convinced, and the strength to pursue what you are convinced about, against all odds, this life of strength. This is, for me, the essence of religion.
To me that’s the essence of morality. Religion (especially a belief in a superpower figure, aka “god”) is not necessary in the equation.
And no one has been able to counter MadMan’s point on blind idol worship. I’m sorry but the analogies of nationalism or logos / branding simply do not hold water.
In the case of branding, I see hundreds of logos everyday, I think highly of only a few of them. And those only after experience (you think highly of shiok only after you’ve sampled the food!). So do you have any concrete experience of how an idol you’ve worshipped has helped? Please discount placebo effects. (I.e you hoped for something, you prayed for it, it did happen and therefore it happened only because you prayed for it)
In the case of nationalism there is something concrete too, akin to the love one has for one’s parents. I’d concede it’s a more nebulous concept, but it’s not blind (well not always!). To just mention a counterfactual, note how popular a green card is.
praveen said:
Yazad,
Maybe Santosh can give you more apt answer, but from what I understand, I dont see any confusion caused by that defenition of religion. If you are trying to understand “religion” as based on chirstianity or islam a god is waiting with bated breath to punish you, I believe you will have to rule out hinduism, buddhism and jainism from the defenition altogether. Buddha doesnt even mention about god in any of his lectures.
I dont know if Madman was scorning all the idol worshippers or the just the blind idol worshippers. And I dont see why the analogies wont stand. To take the shiok example only, when you have food at shiok, it a personal experience to you. I cannot quantify that experience neither there is a scientific way to quantify that experience. So the concrete experience you are talking about is personal. Its the same with idol worship too. I am happy with my personal god and it does help me praying/non-praying in a day to day life. Now asking to scientifically prove it is as abusrd as asking to scientifically prove the deliciousness of madman’s dishes.
Now about blind idol worship. I personally dont think blind idol worship will be of any great good, but then its again upto each person to decide. Sri ramakrishna was a blind worshipper of kali, and he found salvation in it. I am not at all against such worship. There might be several worshippers who derive much satisfaction and happiness from it. I cannot say its unscientific and abhor it because, its about individuals experience and as long as no one forced, I am fine with it.
sumitra said:
it is true that a person who has never done idolworship can later never ever bring himself to understand what people who worship idols do or attain.his logical thinking will always appose it. he will have to go a long way before he may once recognise it. i think he may begin with by considering an analogy.
Let us suppose, now there is a girl who is long separated from her beloved lover. what will she do? first she will try all means to get to him directly. when it fails, she would pour out her emotions ,constantly thinking of him,remembering his form, experiencing in mind,his association.if she gets a photograph of him at this stage,she will adore it, keep it next to his heart.she knows not what she will do with it everyday. if she hears,his name, maybe in any other context,may be reffering to anyother person, still she wil remember him and think of him.
To all this what she is doing, dont look at them, you will say she is mad, there is no logic there.but then just see the inside, the essence of all this, the source of these gestures, and it is love, pure love. and that is it.
in essence, it is this pure love that is the essence of all that a devotee does.
praveen said:
Santosh said,
i saw the comments. there is no use arguing much to them. rather the comments just got concentrated on a silly point of idol worship. one picked it up from no where. all followed. just make comments on the core points on the post which people should think on. idol worship is not for the ones who dont want it. that is the theme of the post. each is free his way.
el dopesta said:
hey praveen,
how con you comment on christian beliefs and muslim beliefs saying that god is waiting with bated breath to punish you?. have you actually studied these or other religions to the extent that you can sit with a reverand, vicar, bishop, imam, sheikh or mufti and debate with them as to who is right and provide time dated or 100 pecent factual information as to fully prove your beliefs over theirs. forgive me if i am wrong but i think you cant. infact, the jews christians muslims and jehova’s witnesses (just to mention a few) believe that god is willing to forgive quicker than to punish an individual. with regards to the nation and flag comments, fare enough it promotes unity but in no way does that mean that hinduism is right and that you are not to be punished by god for acts such as murder or rape etc. you show me where it is written in the bhagwath gita to bow down infront of idols or to shape them in any way to resemble god. hinduism is not a particular religion, hinduism is based on the diversified beliefs of the many clans that lived on or around the indus. perhaps you are a folower of sanaathan dharma? let me know
praveen said:
el dopesta,
1. Yes, my dear dopesta, I have studied more about other religions, particularly christianity.
2. Yes, I think my god does not punish, nor interfere unless requested.
3. Yes, Hinduism is right… or maybe left, come to think of it, its center actually.
4. We have got around hunderds of scriptures to choose from, not just bhagavat gita… talk about the freedom of choice that god gave us ;-)
5. Good to know that you have done much research on hinduism to make such sweeping statement.
6. Yes indeed, I am a follower of sanatana dharma :-)
Jeo said:
Praveen, my follow-up comment on your previous post seems to have ended up in ‘WP spam-karma’ for eternity and this time around you also could not save it, I guess! :)
Santosh seems to have tried answering my earlier query, about what ‘hinduism’ is, in an apparently incoherent way and seems to have ended up, by the goodness of his heart, that religion is what one believes even if it is secularism. Though this considerably differs from the dictionary definition of religion (as something that espouses the existence of and dependency on a supernatural/divine power), I find this view as much more acceptable. I think that is a big step back from propagating the typical hindu fundamentalist view.
However, the post does not yet define how ‘Hinduism’ is indeed a religion and not a way of life followed by the people who lived around Indus, regardless of their preference towards atheism/theism. If you logically analyse, Hinduism is far from a religion, unlike the other modern religions. Perhaps I might express my views later in one of my own blog posts.
btw, I found this essay from another blog which is quite interesting. You do not need to believe or agree with each and every word the author says. However, it is still an informative and intellectually stimulating essay.
For me, it seems that Indians are actually blessed with a way of life called ‘Hinduism’, which is far from being a restricted religion, tolerates an inclusive society to all kinds of beliefs that actually seek the truth (much like what Santosh expressed). The point is that it all goes wrong when Hindu fundamentalists try to define it as the religion as it is defined in the scriptures. That actually fails my concept of Hinduism.
Somehow Praveen seems to have got rattled a little bit on the comments this time. But to the defense of other secularists, unlike you mentioned, I do not think Jesus preached about a hell waiting for those who have sinned. Rather I would think he was showing us how we can be redeemed from our sins in our lives. Then again, Jesus did not want to put in place a religion called ‘Christianity’. It was only made a religion by his followers! Well, I am not so well read on Christianity, so that is what all I can say on this matter!
Well, I hope this comment is not going to suffer for its ‘karma’! :)
praveen said:
Jeo,
Your karma seem to have had problems, but all sorted out now. ;-)
To begin with, I found the idea explained by santosh very clear and precise. That exactly is how I see the evolution of religion, atleast in this side of the world. Now with regards to the details, I have asked for santosh’s viewpoints to elaborate more, and he will be coming out soon.
I have gone through the link you provided, and the author indeed have his own viewpoints. But its good that, it doesnt clash with my ideas or thoughts, though I found him leaning too much on Gandhi and Manusmriti on the article. But then again, that might me due to my view-points.
I too agree that, we are blessed lot, to have a such a free religion and I too am saddened by the way the fundamentalism is coming slowly to the fore. But, from what I see most of it seem to be reactionary. I personally think that this is due to the fundamentalist persistancy from evangelical christian and islamic groups, which has ballooned the idea that hinduism is under threat. Hindu fundamentalism is feeding on that fear. Now the question that if this will stop, depends on the answer if the evangelists will stop. Now, I know the import of the view that I am saying and maybe I will elaborate on that in the future, but that remains my idea on this issue.
Yes, I was not very happy to answer the queries by el dopesta. First of all the comments he made was a sort of ramble, well thats what I felt, and hence the reply like that. Truly, I dont have any problem with Jesus or christianity or even islam, but I dont agree with narrow mindedness and the view that theirs is the only way. Indeed Jesus didnt want to start christianity, but the 12 people who disowned him when he was arrested , thought otherwise ;-)
milton poulose said:
hi dopesta,
cool yaar.much we have to consider the atrocities in our own community.I am an engineering student and many of my friends and i feel that the farther you are from the church the nearer you are to God. Recently when i was attending a Mass, in the church, the speech was almost entirely criticism and mudslinging over hindus.I myself felt bad.That good feeling in mind will be gone.I think church itself is becoming a hindarance to secularism.And , conversion, christ has asked to turn more people, towards the path of god. it doesnt mean converting people of other faith to our religion. there are 70 percent of us who are living far away from the 10 commandments, and the world is full of corruption and deceit. if conversion should be there, let us first convert the perverted ones in our own community towards true christianity rather than searching menbers from other communities.
Tushar said:
Wow,
This is amazing. Talk about a bunch of educated, liberal well-to-do urbanites making headway in conceptual debate! The only view I’ll add to this discussion is about pseudo-secularism. Dont you guys see how haj subsidies, blatant minority appeasement, nationalisation of temples etc. generally fuels the Hindutva movement? I think this has a lot to do with it.
Truly amazing to see such a sincere, honest and open discussion without any mudslinging. Ive found it impossible yet to do the same in reality. Ah, well…some things dont change.
Tushar
PS - Superb piece and excellent discussion.
Tushar said:
I forgot to add that my view quasi-agnostic quasi-santanic philosophy completely agrees with Santosh’s piece. Infact, it is a replica of the same - the quest of a people for the unknown (if it exists)…with natural evolution and no rigid dogmatism. And yes I am completely against Islam and Christianity and anyone who condemns me to hell in sermons by evoking his/her holy books.
Tushar
Jeo said:
Praveen, I would surely like to see Santosh’s views. However, let me point out that when you say ‘…by the way the fundamentalism is coming slowly to the fore. But, from what I see most of it seems to be reactionary…’, to me it seems like a self-defeating argument. I say so, as it seems to be contrary to the final paragraphs of Santosh’s letter. Regardless of what path a person in India takes isn’t he still seeking the same truth? So why worry about ‘…the fundamentalist persistancy from evangelical christian and islamic groups…’ unnecessarily? So will I be right if concluded that your concern on this matter may be somewhere else deep-rooted? I may wait to see your post on the same. :)
Now about the pseudo-secularism comment. I am always confused about this term when used by right wing junta. If its
mostly about uniform civil code, it is an eventuality time will bring. Now jumping up on other religions for making this happen is the worst to way to achieve it. Why not us and our ‘responsible’ political parties engage everyone in a serious discussion about this among the people instead of doing the ‘mud-slinging’ that normally ensues? Some dreams I have, right! ;)
Tushar, please do a word search for ‘hell’ on this before grabbing that handful of mud. ;) As a matter of fact, each of us should read atleast some of the stuff in that site before really going further on these discourses, I guess.
rajesh malhotra said:
joe, ur ideas seem to have sprung from some literature on net,
and hence remain tainted.
The Translations have soo much flaws, and errors in concepts as they have been written with out the right knowledge of sanscrit and the depth and perspective of indian philosophy.
Hindus do believe that the body is perishable and may be subjected to all pleasures and tortures over a finite period of time, but the soul remains eternal, pure , fully potent, in bliss, unattached to the pleasures and tortures of the body and finally through a series of births and deaths, ultimately reaches the very abode of God, in its reunion with the paramatma , the absolute Soul. thisis the birth right of every soul and every living being ultimately reaches this bliss, may be in 1000 yrs or lakhs of years of millions and millions of years.
There is absolutely nothing called eternal hell,rather it is the absolute union with GOD, the complete happiness and immortality and omnipresence, that every living oraganism right from a bacteria to the highest celestial being , is entitled to.
one get infinite number of chances to take birth and absolve one’s sins however deep they may be.
Sages say that by reciting the names of Hari with reverence and devotion, sins of crores of birth get absolved immediately in totality, just like years of darkness in a closed room is fully removed as the doors are openedand light is allowed in.
Read the story of ajamila in bhagavatam, valmiki, in ramayanam to get light in this point. there are so many authoritative texts written by well learned scholars and not these trash sites that you are depending for yourself.
Jeo said:
Now that’s blasphemy!!! To disparage the power and divinity of internet! :)
You may be right about my knowledge… Except for the stories my granny and mom told me when I was a kid, and except for the inumerable visits to the local temples with my neighbour aunty, and except for the early years when myself and my dad used to compete in learning more of the Hindu puranas, these days I pretty much have to rely on the ‘trash sites’ you mentioned. ;)
It is easy to discard anything as not authoritative. I can bet my life’s wages that these people who translated these books had much more the ‘right knowledge of sanskrit and the depth and perspective of indian philosophy’ than you and me combined ever had (sorry for being brash).
What lost in translation is the same for the sacred texts of other religions also. So please keep an open mind to allow in the light to remove the years of darkness! (sorry, I can’t help it, u gave me that stick!) ;) Pretty sad, though, that the Ajamila story was about the befallen Brahmana, but not the prostitute, who was calling out to their dear son ‘Narayana’. That would have shown how merciful the God is regardless of what were one’s ’sins’ and what ‘one’ was.
btw, RM sounds more like a Tamil than the name suggests. I may give my second guess, perhaps later. ;)
praveen said:
Tushar,
I am happy that you found this discussion good. I do think that the rise of recent hindu activism is more reactionary and maybe I will write my thoughts about it soon. But Hinduism indeed is facing a really bleak future, and unless the hindu youth setout demystifying and preserving our culture, the “soul reaping” evangelists will do the maximum damage.
praveen said:
Geo,
The discussion between Rajesh(?) and yourself seem to be going nowhere. I think it might be entering the vicious loop. I do have a fair idea of whom he is, as I can trace peoples loction using IP adresses in the comments ;-) Yes, I do have a fair Idea of your location too.
Now coming back to the topic, to begin to answer you, I would like to know what exactly you consider as fundamentalism? When do a person/religion turn fundamentalist. If you think about the answer, it itself will be self-revealing. I will try to write a bit more on it, defenitely.
Every person is free to choose to believe what he wants. I can believe in Krishna, and you can believe in Jesus, and yet another person in, say a unicorn. But it becomes fundamentalist, when I start to say to you that only I am right, and you should also believe in Krishna, and start coercing you and in every possible opportunity deride your god.
Now think about it. Yes, any person following any path defenitely might be searching for the truth, be it christian, muslim, hindu or buddhist. But when someone (or some group) crosses that line of secularism, that becomes fundamentalist and starts a set of conflict in the socitey. Over a period of time the reaction to it logically will come to the fore. Think about it without any bias, I am sure you will see what I am trying to get.
Now that fine line is what divides seculrism and fundamentalism. In one of the earlier comments, some Milton said how the Church was de-riding Hinduism. I dont know from first account if its true, but I have heard enough deriding from one of my christian friends, who ran away from college to become priest. If Chiristian priests after having 8 years of training are taught this, I dont think I will easily accept that christianity or churchianity is truly secular.
Even if you look at the history of Islam and Christianity, I have seen the swords and guns playing the coercing role more often than not. A history of middle-east, latin america will suffice to check the veracity of my point. I am sure the mighty google will present you with more links.
I am really happy to know that you had learnt several puranic stories from your parents only. Atleast you are open to it, shows that you might not be a follower of Churchianity. But still dont bet your whole life’s wage on some translator yet. Particularly the one you are linking the manusmriti translation to (tranlsated in 1886). That translator is a german called George Bühler, apparently a contemporary of Max müller, at a time when many of the Indian scriptures were yet to be discovered by west :-) And the for the best explanation for such a great culture they unearthed, they came up with a “Aryan Invasion theory”. Attributing ‘right knowledge of sanskrit and the depth and perspective of indian philosophy’ to these people is too premature, atleast in this case :-p
Well with regards to reading the scriptures before we progress, hindus have several scriptures (including manusmriti) to do that, you see. In refernce to heaven and hell, Sage Ashtvakra had said, na swargo naiva narako jivanmukatir na chaiva hi, bahunaantara kim uktaena yogadhrishtyah na kinchan. “No heaven, no hell, not even liberation, See through yoga and there is nothing more to say.
But then again, scriptures were made for man, not man for scriptures ;-)
praveen said:
Santosh wrote,
Da, saw the comments. I understood yazad’s doubts. One’s spirituality or religion is reflected in every minute of one’s life. It is there in its essence in his every thought, every view, every action and in the entire walk of his life. It is an open quest and is never restricted to a few minutes of prayer every day or a set of rituals or customs what so ever.
Morality has its basis in religion. “Why I have to be good?” is a philosophical question.The anwer to this lies in the oneness of man and the oneness of his quest. One can propose the existence of supernatural power to begin his quest, as a matter, by power of one’s intuition., but the quest becomes open only if one’s religion attempts to establish its existence or nonexistence for oneself.
Tushar is sraight, Rajesh’s central point is precise, it seems a direct description from bhagavatam. I may not agree that all links in internet are trash and neither will i agree joe’s divinity of net :-). In fact one of his links that i read… “why i am not a Hindu” do contain a fully flawed translation of a verse and this is a serious error. if you want, one day I may write about it.
I too believe christ hasnt spoken about eternal hell though christians do, and i am really astonished when these guys fight over seeing light and opening their hearts. Da, who amongst us has ever seen light?, and those who have, have been extremely simple loving and accomodating. For all of us, it is a journey, here each man and women we see around, is our friend, god sent to help us in this journey. I think it is in this perspective of love, we can move ahead…
Joe’s comment on ajamila is incorrect and seem to have been done in haste. Also he just ignore the case of valmiki, who was a nishada, who got the greatest celestial bilss. Rama himself prostrated before him. However these are not for aurgument. But then again, rubbing stones too shall make it smooth eventually.
Jeo said:
Guys, please keep a sense of humour and don’t pick on each word, for Krishna’s sake! ;)
I was no way interested in taking Rajesh’s response as relevant to the discussion. I just couldn’t let pass the ignorance of throwing out something as not reliable just because it was from the net and just because it was written by a non-Hindu(?) in English. I could have argued about his other points as well. Actually I missed the Valmiki reference because of the coma in that sentence. 12.30 in the night and you expect me to pick that one up, give me a break! ;) btw, I didn’t want to be intrusive regarding Rajesh’s location. It was just a childish curiosity seeing a northern Indian name with southern Indian usage of ‘ramayanam’ or ‘bhagavatam’! Never mind. And yes, Praveen, I was very much a resident of your village till sometime back! ;)
Now coming to Praveen’s own comments. What you mentioned is a part of what constitutes fundamentalism, I agree. But what I don’t agree with is the generalisation and disrespect you make with regard to other religions, in reaction to individual activities. Tushar was also doing the same and that is the only reason I had given that link to say that even Hinduism is not above criticism if his argument is to be taken. I don’t think any of us will agree that Hinduism, and not just the people who perpetrated it, is to be blamed for the atrocities happened in the name of Ram Janma Bhoomi. I am not trying to say that you two disrespect other religions deliberately. I tend to believe that you are too nice for that, after reading recent explanations from you two (though my earlier opinion was slightly different, from reading your old posts and comments ;) ). However, what you say in this nonchalant way is going to affect others inadvertently. I believe every word we speak can affect others by those who read your posts. In fact, that was the only reason I thought I will engage in a debate with you regarding these matters. I haven’t yet seen anybody won over by a debate so far. But what I know is that the debate will force the person to atleast think the other way also, if he is willing.
Just a few more concluding points for this post:
* Most of the Hindu scriptures are now available to our common man by the efforts of those European translators and by our own great philosophers who again translated them to English. If not, these still would have been the exclusive privilege of an elite minority to keep the others in darkness and social deprivation in the name of religion.
* I believe a Christian wrote the only Hindu puranic encyclopaedia in India.
* If you want to save our religion we need people like Milton Poulose in our religion, who are ready to criticise if something is wrong in our own religion. Apart from the genuine conversions (which is an individual’s own call which merits due respect), all other conversions, (as per your argument,) those propel Hindu reactionary activities, happen because of social and economic reasons. Period. If you can do nothing about it, forget about claiming them as Hindus and crying about losing our religion. Atleast missionaries pump a lot of money into those poor areas. What do our wealthy temples do for those poor people?
* I am not one to claim that I have seen the light, Santosh. I neither did nor fought with RM on that matter. I was rebuking him/her for an irrelevant comment. On the contrary I am a very much ordinary person who just believes in ‘jeo aur jeene do’ ;)
* Lastly, (not as if it matters), I am not someone who happen to be ‘open’ to Hindu scriptures on the virtue of ‘not being a Christian’ (that’s prejudice on your part, mate!). I am a Hindu the way I believe a Hindu is. And I do respect all other religions and the people who follow them for the truth and comfort they seek.
* It was surely good to talk to you guys and hope to read more of you, perhaps without a long debate between us.
praveen said:
Geo,
It was really good to have a constructive discussion with you, and you have done a good conclusion. Ok, I just wanted a few thoughts to be posted after that. ;-)
With reference to milton paulose, we have sufficient milton paulose’s in our religion, rather we have more hindus deriding our religion than people from other faiths. While I believe that we should be open to any constructive criticism of our religion, I do also believe that it should happen within other religions as well. Even the media apparently behaves one sided in this matter. While they take pride in deriding hinduism, they turn a blind eye when the same happens with other religions.
I dont think I hold any persons religion against him, but when the religion takes more bigger role than the person, and is intruding upon me, I dont mind taking up the challenge. With regards to translation of the scriptures, I am not saying that the first people who translated our scriptures did a bad job, but what I am saying is to evaluate their translations in the light of the understanding that we have, keeping in mind the limitations they had.
Finally, I was a wee bit disappointed to find that you were a hindu and not of christian faith. I do wonder at the lack of persons like milton poulose in christianity (in India), while I see an abundance of them in hinduism. Maybe I am totally wrong, but I dont find enough evidence to back it up. But anyways, it was nice to have a good discussion with you and hope to see you back again. And since you are somewhere in the neighbourhood only, maybe we can meetup sometime. My email you can find in the site iteslf.
just me said:
hi– i was jus browsin nd i ended up fallin on this site, anywayz i thought these discussions were very good, but I was just wondering—a couple of you seemed to be putting islam and christianity along the same lines I might be mistaken because I haven’t read this thing throughly—but I thought that Christianity and islam although have many similarties also disagree upon many things–a couple of things I would like to be cleared up on is why do the girls have to wear the veils and cover up so much–i read somewhere it was considered a sin to walk out from your house or something like that for a muslim girl, but we all know that a lot of them do, and a lot of them dont cover up as much but claim to be muslim–but I hear others say it is a sin, I know it is impossible to follow just about everything a religion seeks– but if you are to be part of a religion than shouldnt the basics be followed? In christianity, much of the stuff done is church–i hope you guys get what I mean when I say that christianity seems to be a thing of love which is great no doubt but I think there can be further more in a religion and ppl shouldnt always try to convert others–it is insulting sometimes —yes great you love your religion it is not like other ppl dont or really oppose to it but putting other religions down isnt right either…obviously all this is very broad and I know what I am saying is very rough here as I am only in middle school lol–but very interested in religion— all of you guys seem to be with greater knowledge than I —so I was just hoping I could get some answers bascially. In my conclusion all religions try to reach god in one practise or another, aethius even though they dont –i think it should depend on the condition of ones heart, and nothing should be forced upon i
santosh said:
…Hi, just…that was nice. And You are right too .And why worry abt that pardha?You know in my school days, my headmaster used to say..”the pardha system is an ingenious way by which the beautiful women will cover their faces from we hapless men , though they can very well enjoy the handsome faces of the guys through the sides of the veil”..hehe, got it, so some wear it, some dont , be happy.
joe, easy, we understand one another.
Tushar said:
To reiterate, this is a great discussion. But what Joe has been saying is precisely what irks me. Exactly as you try to point out your neutrality by pointing to some objectionable verses in ManuSmriti’s flawed translation, there are very fundamental directives you need to be aware of.
Firstly, Manu Smriti is not a ‘revelation’. It is not something every Hindu must follow or perish in an eternal hell. If he does follow those laws of Manu, he, again, will not gain entry into an earthly paradise with virgins awaiting him (number of them disputed).
Secondly, Hinduism has many scriptures. Indeed my view is that ManuSmriti cud be lumped in with Kautilya’s Arthashastra insofar as both were supposedly written laws for contemporary society. They became scripture only cos of them being passed down to various generations.
Thirdly, as we know Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma) is not a monolithic cult. There is no ONE WAY. Its the most individualistic religion one might find.
Considering all of the above, please do not carry on with your supposed neutral and morally higher ground of not taking sides. Please study Islam in earnest and then write a reply. What I realise by such discussions is that most well meaning intelligent folks are like you….so was I. We would go on generalising with neutrality that no one thing is more wrong than others. But only an earnest study will tell you what exactly Islam is. Go on, read Schacht, Margoliouth, Ibn Warraq, Golziher and others who have done monumental research on it. And why not read contemporary scholars like Bernard lewis, Samuel Huntington and Daniel Pipes? Unless you are of the view that the former were all racist orientalists and the latter zionist jews intent on distorting the image of Islam, then you will see why I generalise about islam. And for that matter, all I said was the little tidbit about being damned to hell. Perhaps you would like to counter that well-known bit of information of all kaafir being damned to hell??
Tushar said:
Let me add a bit about translation. It might well be argued about the similar flawed nature of other translations. But what about translations done by people of the creed? (eg. Quran by Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall and Yusuf Ali) If Im not mistaken, that name is German?
Even so, my main point is not about all those things in the manusmriti (which i abhor). To reiterate, manusmriti does not have to be followed to attain salvation, whereas Quran is THE DEFINITIVE text which must be followed by all muslims.
And no Im not anti-muslim, Im anti-islam. My girlfriend and best friend are muslims. ;) And for good reasons I dont bring up the topic in their midst. :D
As for Christianity, I apologize for lumping it with Islam. But my fundamental opposition is against spiritual bondage with no liberty whatsoever. As far as I know, all churches and their philosophies (except this south american one which preaches necessity of other religions, excuse me i forget the name) preach that salvation is possible only through Christ. Also whenever we speak of religious wars we only mention crusades. I infact do not consider crusades to be abhorrent as the best scholarship has shown them to be defensive wars against offensive jihad. But what is significantly missed is the advent of christianity in rome and jerusalem. How it wrecked havoc upon the heathens and pagans.
I realise that argument is subject to the ‘theory vs practice’ objection, but nonetheless there is not a speck of comparison insofar as religious wars are concerned with hinduism.
Im sorry for taking the discussion deep into few areas. I really prefer to stay universal and discuss the higher and broader aspects of religious philosophy and their social implications, but I felt I must speak out against supposed neutrality by the likes of Joe. :)
And Yes, everything must be subject to scrutiny and analysis equally.
Jeo's evil twin, Neo :) said:
What I realise by such discussions is that most well meaning intelligent folks are like you….so was I.
Hmm… What happened then… Oxygen deficiency? ;)
neoalchemist.com : praveen kumar’s journal » Blog Archive » Hindu dharma said:
[...] had been of quite good help in understanding my religion better. Further to his entry on religion, he has wrote more about hindu dharma and its spirituality with clarity. [...]
Tushar said:
haha…no well…saudi is not too industrial….hence oxygen was plentily available, albeit with lots of sand particles. :)
akhmed khan said:
Dears Mad manji and yajidji,
Idol is just a symbol, of the characteristics you want to see in a particular god. It is not necessary to worship idols to find eternal peace and happiness. If one can recite AUM or Gayatri mantra or any other prayer, it’ll be as good.
Of course BLIND idol worship is bad. People do so because they have forgotten the reason behind making of idols. Now they just do it as a ritual.
Actually idol worship is scientific, provided the idol is made of “PANCHDHATU”. The alloy has strong effect on collecting Psychotropic energy. More details on http://www.indpride.com
Sanija George said:
As Santosh ahd told me , I went through this site , but concentrated only on this part . And I would like to give a comment only where I felt its required. And also Santhosh ,I’m more happy to give the comment by visualizing the present , what I see around me.
It is all about how man tried to perceive the universe. It is more about his quest about his own roots, the origin, cause and purpose of his own existence, the final destination and the ultimate goal (if such a thing exists) of this very thing called life.
So when I read the above paragraph , I really wonder myself THE FINAL DESTINATION , THE ULTIMATE GOAL !!!! can you please tell me today’s man’s ultimate goal? What is their destination? Our discussion at Hydrabad comes to my mind. Hope you may can give a better answer through this .
This quest, a direct resultant of man’s curiosity and intellectual thirst has persisted in him right from the time civilization was born.
can you tell what exactly the civilization mean ?
Thus as he was learning to make wheel, making wheel?
he was also laying down the fundamental principles of philosophy. Phylosophy?
This is where, da praveen, I am seeing the first grains of what is called Religion- A term, as I see it, unalloyed, free from the dust and debris, the modern definition of the term carries with it- here let us see Man’s genuine quest for the ultimate truth of being.
A research into the life and thoughts of earlier Indian society will reveal a lot of facts.
I really don’t agree with this Santoah , I think A research into OUR OWNAS WELL AS THE SURRONDING LIVES , and the thoughts comes followed by that can reveal A LOT OF FACTS , which is more understandable and applicable .
Contemplation, argumentation and discussions were tools of establishing the principles.
And still this is the strongest tools , the difference I could find is the way of doing , as the technology has improved .
Sanscrit language with all its grammatical superiority & structural strength was a great contribution of this age. This became the medium of sankhyam, tharkam, meemamsa - all these well-structured and scientific tools of logic and reasoning and logistics towards the ultimate human goal. All these thoughts and deductions were put to experimentation and the ardent followers had come up with their results followed by detailed analysis and validations.( I don’t have much knowledge about it )
Any development in sciences will always lay down newer and newer building bricks( STRONG AS WELL AS WEAK ) in the social construction..
. The concept of bhakti and dharma
For me the above mentioned concept is beyond religion, place, culture, etc. as you know I’ve never read any of other religious books except BIBLE ( very few part). But I feel those concepts are something which should originate from mind . (Never matter how they call that). None of the books can teach this to man (who does not have that concept) other than LIFE. But unfortunately many of them wont understand even form life.
Common man ’saw’ God, philosophers discussed God, Vedantis pursued God and the ones like Buddha perceived God… All were free… to go the way they like. And they did go. Their experiences did make their marks in the building bricks of the society. Some or most in the form of cults.
Yet the wheels did run and the pursuit went on and on. Still going on, WHY?
Down the masses many-where, values were getting degenerated. This always happens in the society. Many practices became mere rituals and distorted concepts crept in when arrogance and base instincts in man took the upper hand. The caste atrocities as such are the best examples. Yet there was a force… a force in the works of the ancient Man that bound them together into a common civilization which, seen in total is simply glorious.
And this life… it is this life of freedom, honest and sincere pursuit towards truth, the readiness to put one’s own thoughts to test before facts, readiness to accept the new, on being convinced, and the strength to pursue what you are convinced about, against all odds, this life of strength. This is, for me, the essence of religion. This is my religion. This is the one that existed in India and remains still eternal. They call it Hindu religion. The word could remain or not, it is just a label. Still, if you choose it, by name, then this what I have described above is my definition of Hinduism.
Da, here each man lives his own religion. He thinks. He experiments, he proceeds. Religion for one lies in ones own instincts… in one’s own heart. When he surrenders this to the one self who he considers the higher self, The Guru, who shall instruct him further, he becomes the sishya. Some walk their own way, still they walk, and that is the point. That is the strength. That is religion.
This force is natural. It is there in every man. It knows no geographic or cultural boundaries. In fact it is an act of going beyond boundaries. And this force, this is the only common bond in all these pursuits. And this goes by definition of the term… Religion. Eda… that is it. The very word religion can be given only this one meaning. And thus it exists in its core in every man, and is beyond all labels. And it is this force that comes out as religion of every man.
Thus in truth Religion is universally one, da. This is the concept of secularism. And this is the concept of religion too. Both are exactly one and the same. Though both are in today’s language misnomers.
For me ’ HUMAN BEING’ is beyond religion. I could never see any point of seeing a man through the religious point of view . as you said there were great philosophers , scientists, rich , poor , ……… DIFFERENT kind of people, and there are& will be . But all have birth , life, death. No matter who he was / is , how he lived .
santosh.G said:
“So when I read the above paragraph , I really wonder myself THE FINAL DESTINATION , THE ULTIMATE GOAL !!!! can you please tell me today’s man’s ultimate goal? What is their destination? Our discussion at Hydrabad comes to my mind. Hope you may can give a better answer through this ………”
mm…Exactly speaking sanija, This final destination is unknown.We are guided by our intuition ,our feeling, and rationale towards our own very essence, somehow it turns to be a quest into the source of happiness,abiding peace and tranquillity,.We still feel vaguely, an urge towards a pursuit of higher meaning of life.
can you tell what exactly the civilization mean ?_i see it as the collective living standard of humanbeings.
“I really don’t agree with this Santoah , I think A research into OUR OWNAS WELL AS THE SURRONDING LIVES , and the thoughts comes followed by that can reveal A LOT OF FACTS , which is more understandable and applicable .”..Both are equally true sanija,Man is the same beast at any time frame…the eqations change not much.
The life of the primitive man was raw experimentation.it is the exciting jungle life.modern man has a settled base.both are so real and smell human.
“But I feel those concepts are something which should originate from mind . (Never matter how they call that). None of the books can teach this to man (who does not have that concept) other than LIFE. But unfortunately many of them wont understand even form life.”…100 percent right.May these words be written for ever in golden letters.
“For me ’ HUMAN BEING’ is beyond religion.”
mmmm…. Rather, Religion implies the very life of a human being as a true human beings,to fully live out his feelings,his thoughts,his passions,to live every moment to its full extent, being true to oneself-not as a hypocrite.
though modern religious groups do the opposite.
“could never see any point of seeing a man through the religious point of view” .-true,never to see a man through his point of views-all are equal and free.
” as you said there were great philosophers , scientists, rich , poor , ……… DIFFERENT kind of people, and there are& will be . But all have birth , life, death. No matter who he was / is , how he lived . “-Yes, it imples only to oneself the onus to decide whether one’s life was worth its living.its definition and rating, he himself has the right to do.
Abranches said:
Why do people turn to religion?
Why do people turn to religion? The human power of formal reasoning has an unavoidable limit. We can never be entirely sure of the logical basis of our conclusions; so we begin to recognize that there are unsolvable mysteries. And this feeling of being surrounded with mysteries, one cannot grasp, turns into indescribable awe. Fear of unknown make people turn to religion.
Fear of unknown is at the root of all religions; and all personal religious experiences have their root and center in mystical states of human consciousness. Like drugs, the religions too may produce a psychotropic influence on human mind; and stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature. Even so, religions do bring a sense of inner happiness, though short-lived, in a state of false inner tranquility and balance; but over passionate pursuance may produce mild euphoria, cause hallucination; and even alter perception and thinking pattern.
Almost all religions are designed to bring about a packaged peace of mind. These turnkey packages come in complete with ready for use set of strongly held beliefs, values, and attitudes to live by. But do they really get you conditioned to deep solutions?
All religions aim to give comfort and moral instruction for life on Earth, and to inspire hope for life after death. The religion should rather counsel contemplation and endurance; shape common sense and awaken the believers because hope is but the dream of those that wake.
The religions have few things to hope for and many things to fear. One among them is the fear of hell. Fear of hell alarms the believers successively to the point that they dose themselves heavily by every specific remedy the religions offers. The consequence is that the fears, which had first been imaginary, become real and in the state of living, they become more dead than alive.
santosh said:
hoo god..the above words are just the normal modern thoughts on religion which i tried to upoot in the essay i wrote.it indeed is hard for open neutral words to percolate in to minds once stuck into a seemingly logical loop.
Muralee said:
Read your views on religion today, 10 April 2006 sitting in my home at Valamangalam.
The physical bodies are of the same constituents and individual minds are always linked to both the past and the future. To be, now, in the world net, an active participant in upholding whatever is good for the entire humanity is the challenge and the Religion of the world Tomorrow!
??