Literary Discussions

Let me focus on this interesting statement you made and say a few
things:

I personally dont believe in many of the beliefs in Upanishads, or in
Bhagvat-Geeta, but I respect them all the same just as I respect
Newton and acknowledge his contributions to Science though I dont
take all his equations to be true.

Now, we all know that Newtonian mechanics works just fine to measure
the trajectory of cannon balls, and even the motions of the planets
(within an acceptable degree of accuracy). But it does not word for
intergalactic phenomena or subatomic phenomena.

Same is true with Euclidean geometry. Gausse measured the triangle
formed by three mountain peaks and, within the limits of instrumental
accuracy, could not determine whether the interior triangles were
EXACTLY the sum of two right angles (180 degrees), or whether they
EXCEEDED 180 (as hyperbolic geometry dictates) or FELL SHORT (as
elliptical geometry predicts).

And yet Euclidean geometry, fine for fields, and mountain peaks and
architecture, is not suitable for intergalactic or subatomic space.
One must look to a Reimannian model of "finite but unbounded", or
some other non-Euclidean model.

The mathematical constant PI , taken to ten decimal places, is
adequate to measure the circumference of the perceptible universe to
within the accuracy of one foot. Need more accuracy? Take more
decimal places! Take all you like! PI is an INFINITE irrational
sequence of non repeating numbers. You may approach AS CLOSE AS YOU
LIKE (but you can NEVER be precise and exact). This is the nature of
incommensurability between the finite and the infinite; between the
material and the spiritual.

Religions are not much different. What does Lord Krsna say in the
Gita. Some people say "Vasudeva is all". Others worship various demi-
Gods. Yet others worship demon and rakshasa Gods. Others worship
ghosts. Krsna says that ALL WORSHIP comes to Him, even from people
who are totally ignorant of His nature.

And whatever we worship, the Gita says thats where we go. We get what
we want. If we worship the demiGods, we go to them. If we worship
Jesus or Allah, we go to Jesus or Allah.

My point is, within the CONTEXT of a devotee's nature, based on the
gunas and karma of past lives, their particular religion IS ACCURATE
ENOUGH for that context. Just like Euclid and Newton are fine in the
context of cannon ball trajectories. Lord Krsna ALSO mentions those
individuals who, because of their particular nature, turn everything
about and call DHARMA as adharma, and make adharma into Dharma.

So what this all boils down to is simply that, "Truth is relative and
in context". Truth is a particular truth in the context of a given
axiomatic system (where certain things are assumed on FAITH. For if
EVERYTHING were to be proved and derived, it would be an INFINITE
REGRESSION).

So a Euclidean geometer TAKES ON FAITH the Axioms "a point is that
which has no part" and "a line is a breadthless length".

Axios in Greek means "worthy" (worthy of being accepted
unquestioningly as something apriori and obvious).

When a Greek Bishop ordains a new priest, the congregation shouts
three times "Axios! Axios! Axios!" (worthy of being accepted without
question).

If we cannot find absolute truth even in MATHEMATICS or Physics, but
realize that everything is realtive to separate, mutually exclusive
axiomatic systems, then why should we assume that there is one true
religion and that all the rest are false, since there is a close
analogy between religious systems of beliefs and mathematical
axiomatic systems.

=============

: Sankar

: hi. thanks for your thought-provoking reply.

: : I think Hinduism deserves to be called a religion. As you said,
it is exploratory rather than revelatory. However, it has all the
trappings of religion (rituals, places of worship, gods, priests).
The concept of "bhakti" exists within Hinduism as within other
religions. Even great Hindu philosophers and intellectuals have been
devotees of some god or the other (although they made it clear that
such devotion is not inconsistent with their philosophies). In this
sense, it certainly is a religion like any other. Indeed, I think
the "institutionalized religion" aspect of Hinduism is necessary for
its very survival. That is why, in a previous post, I also
raised the question of "trivialization" of Hindu practices (the
corruption of the caste system, observance of trivial customs while
ignoring the important ones) and the claims of being "orthodox
Hindus" by unqualified persons.

: I think our difference is based on the different definitions
of 'religion' and 'hinduism' we seem to follow. Of course hinduism
includes many different streams of religion-like things, I dont think
it is a single 'religion', because though there are rituals, places
of worship etc., you are not forced to follow any of them in order to
be a hindu, as there is no structure that defines hinduism per se. It
is more like a superset of a lot of strongly interacting religious
streams, but again that is not a right definition. It may be defined
as a 'super-religion' different in internal and external
manifestations from the semitic 'religions'. By the way I have the
semitic
religions in mind when I define a 'religion'.

: I wholeheartedly agree that some sort of institutionalization may be
neccessary for hinduism to survive in these times of arrogant
aggressive
evangelisation, but lets not lose the awe-inspiring beauty of our
philosophy.

:
It is true that Hinduism lays stress on logical reasoning and this
sets it far apart from Middle eastern religions. However, in the
final analysis, its beliefs (as set down in the Upanishads, the most
fundamental philosophical works) are as non-verifiable as any other
religious belief. So, in my opinion, the definition of Hinduism as a
religion is quite valid.

Once more, you talk about 'panths'. I dont know of any well defined
and universally accepted set of beliefs in Hinduism that can not be
questioned. Even vedas could be, and have been throughout our
history. I personally dont believe in many of the beliefs in
Upanishads, or in Bhagvat-Geeta, but I respect them all the same just
as I respect Newton and acknowledge his contributions to Science
though I dont take all his equations to be true.

In my opinion, defining hinduism as a 'religion' is a big demotion for
something much greater.

:
: : Maybe someday, some learned Hindu will incorporate quantum
mechanics into Hindu philosophy in a non-trivial way - why not ?

: That should not be too difficult! As long as they dont try to take
over each-other's territory. We will have another pseudo-science on
our hand then.
:-)
====================

Aha, but are you free to have Islam without the Qur'an? Or Islam
without the "prophet" Muhammad?

Are you free to be Muslim and drink wine?

It is amusing to see all the imagery of wine in the Rubaiyyat of Omar
Khayam, which also contains the seeds of Sufi movement.

Historically in Hinduism, we have seen both men and women become
spiritual leaders considered as Avatars by their devotees. Can
Muslims also become charismat avataric spiritual leaders with large
numbers of followers?

Shirdi Sai Baba lived in an old, abandoned Masjid. Was Shirdi Sai
Baba a Muslim?

One Sufi Martyr exclaimed "I am Allah" which is a very Vedantic
sentiment; but the Orthodox Muslims executed him for blasphemy.

My point is, ONE IS FORCED to confess or accept Muhammad as the seal
of the prophets, and accept all sorts of beliefs that make the
personality of "prophet" Muhammad as the finest and noblest example
of humanity which ever walked the earth.

If one DOES NOT accept these beliefs about the person of Muhammad,
then one is really not a genuine Muslim.

You say that every Muslim relates to god, Allah, DIRECTLY. How can
this be. Not even "prophet" Muhammad got to speak to Allah directly!
Everything was through the Angel Gabreel. Muhammad never heard or saw
Allah (even though the Qur'an mentions that Allah somehow has hands
and feet, and sits upon a throne). And yet the "Sayings of Muhammad"
preserved in Hadith state that the devil is present at every call to
prayer, and performs certain distracting irreverant acts, and then
proceeds to whisper DIRECTLY into the ear of each and every
worshipper.

Does noone find it odd that the Devil has such a direct line of
communication with each and every human being, whereas Allah could
not even talk to Muhammad, but used Gabreel as an intermediary.

The Qur'an is constantly saying "Ascribe no partner to Allah", but
that is EXACTLY what Gabreel seems to be, a partner to Allan. Why,
Allah seems HELPLESS without him!

================

: So is in Islam ,every man relates to god ,Allah directly,there is
no priest or pope intervening.Exploratory nature of hinduism is not
unioque to hinduism but probably all religions thats why you have
saints in christians,sant in hindus & sufis,in moslems.I dont buy
this distinction between hinduism & islam.Islam gives you any space
in the world to worship not a mandir or mosque. What more
availability of god to common man can there be in any other
religion.There is no exclusivity of brahmin with holy book or purohit
to perform puja /.
:
**********************************************************************
**:
This is an excellent distinction, "exploratory as opposed to
revelatory". I have not seen this before, said in this fashion.

: : A religion based solely on the eye witness of one or two figures
from the shadowy mists antiquity leaves more room for doubting than a
religion which invites the devotee to experience divinity first hand
in a subjective fashion.

: : ===============================

: : : Another difference is that Hinduism is an exploratory
philosophy as opposed to a revelatory one. Every person is free to
search for knowledge/God. There are no fixed points in Hindu thought
and God is equally available to anyone who searches. That precludes
the messiahs/prophets in the semitic sense of the term.
===========================================================
What is wrong with "inventing your own religion". Muhammad obviously
invented his own religion, and one billion people in the world think
that its wonderful (and 5 billion people dont think its wonderful).

Why should I be any different that Muhammad?

Why would God be less inclined to speak directly to me, than to
Moses, or Muhammad, or any other human being for that matter?

===============================================================
: iTHINK YOU HAVE INVENTED YOUR OWN RELIGION MR. SITARAM.iHAVE LIVED
ALL MY LIFE AMONG hINDUS & YOU TELL ME THIS MYSTICAL SUFI
PHILOSOPHY ,WHICH IS NOT HINDUISM IN iNDIA. iN iNDIA HINDUISM IS
dURGA pUJA, sARASWATI pUJA, gANESH cHATURVEDI .hOLI. dEEPVAALI.nOW
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU LIKE RELIGION SUPER
PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS(IN iSLAM) DERIVATIONS WHICH ARE NOTHING
BUT CREATION OF YOUR ARGUMENTATATIVE,DEBATING,MIND BUT NOT FACT. iSAW
HINDUISM UP CLOSE & PERSONAL YOU MAY EXPLAIN THAT IF YOU DRINK WINE
YOU SEE GOD OR BE FREE THEN ONLY SEE GOD I THINK THAT IS HIPPIE
ELEMENT IN YOU REMNENT OF YOUR DAYS IN 60 S /