Saturday, March 14, 2009
Found the post below in a discussion board for the "Dare to Question" event my friend invited me to. Normally, I'd just ignore or decline, but it was broadcasted as this intellectual forum thing and I thought, hey, I might as well check out the discussion boards. I mean, they heavily deny that it's "outreach" or trying to "convert" anyone to Hinduism, but it's basically raising awareness, right? And how can you be so sure your faith is the right one if you have not tried all the others, right?Err, sorry, but the post below still makes zero sense to me.It reminded me of all those dumb Christian emails ("IF YOU LOVE JESUS, SEND THIS TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK NOW!"), with the exception that I agree with what the Christian emails say (up to the point where they tell you you serve the devil by deleting it -.-) (oh, and except for that one about some supposed movie in Europe degrading Jesus and making us sign a petition against it) whereas for this post the entire content just kinda made me go, "Huh?"Okay. So Hinduism is a set of beliefs and practices. I can deal with that.No specific god. You can even be a Hindu atheist, apparently.To me, this is where Hinduism is definitely not a religion. If you're a religion, you have a god. If you believe in any/no god, and you can still be part of this, it is a culture. Like being.. liberal. As in, basically, you're joined by a common acceptance of something (religious freedom, or something, in Hinduism's case).So you're telling me that basically, you don't know if there is one god, or many gods, or none at all.But the truth is that there can only be none OR one OR more than one.So, which is it? ..Okay, let's skip this question for now.There is no specific Holy Book or Prophet from which to obtain the absolute standard for this philosophy (I would say religion, but I'm a bit confused with regard to the god part). Of course, this begs the question, since you might be a Hindu atheist and so believe that there can be no Holy Book or Prophet because there is no Higher Being.So, where do the beliefs and practices come from?Culture, tradition. (Am I wrong here?)Okay. So, what's the point of these practices and beliefs? What is the point of Hinduism, then? I was reading another of these discussion threads (Death of Hinduism- Is Hinduism really under threat?) and some of the people are saying that you might be Hindu and not know it.This, I can agree with. I mean, you might be serving the right God and not know it (so in a sense, be a Christian and not know it - i mean, you could follow Christ and not know you're a Christian, you know?). But then I don't get the central thing that binds the Hindus together. Not all of them follow the same practices. I'm not talking about certain rituals and all - not like the charismatics and the anglicans have all the same practices anyways. I'm pointing out that there is no underlying action (e.g. baptism? communion?) that links these. No underlying belief (e.g. Jesus is the Savior. Allah is God. etc).Okay. It has occurred to me that I don't know Hinduism at all. So, maybe the raising awareness thing has a point.But I'm also confused. What was discussed on this forum doesn't sound anything like what Shreya and I discussed about Hinduism, for example the three major gods, or many different deities, or what we learnt about Hinduism (e.g. the many rituals - that skin-piercing thing, is that Hinduism? or Indian dance giving glory to the god of dance (i've seen the picture, the statue has this spiked hat and many arms, or something)).It just seems to me that if I'm not required to believe anything or act in any way, then there is no defining Hinduism. And there is no point in becoming a Hindu. ("you can't convert - it's a set of beliefs and practices, not a religion") So I don't need to be Hindu, I can just continue being Chinese, or Singaporean, or Hokkien. I'll stay Christian, or free-thinker, or Muslim, or atheist, and I won't lose out.Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because there is no single authority or organization either to accept it or to reject it or to oppose it on behalf of Hinduism.' I told her - if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions; don't go from one cult to another or from one guru to the next.
For a real seeker, I told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it says ' Kingdom of God is within you.' I reminded her of Christ's teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you can find the meaning of life. Loving each and every creation of the God is absolute and real. 'Isavasyam idam sarvam' Isam (the God) is present (inhabits) here everywhere - nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present everywhere. Respect every living being and non-living things as God. That's what Hinduism teaches you.
Right. True that the Jesus Christ says that we are to love one another. But what about the other part, when he says "The only way to the Father (that is, God) is through me"? How does that fit in?The meaning of life is to love each and every creation of God. Oh, okay. But I thought you just said I could be atheist AND Hindu. =( So, since I don't believe in a god, I don't believe in a "creation" - where does that leave me? I'm just supposed to love everything around me? (But i hate mushrooms! And cockroaches.)Respect every living being and non-living things as God. Wow. Uh, I'm sorry, but that one I just can't go with. God is God (or Gods are Gods, seeing as how you can have a few - lets not even go into if I'm a Hindu Atheist). If I treated everyone and everything like God, then why do I even believe in God? He is the same as everyone and everything else. No diff. No point worshipping him (or her. or them. or, um, nothing, if you're an atheist). And, well, honestly, I'm not about to respect my handphone like I respect my friend. Let's not even go into respecting the mosquito I just killed, or the toilet I just flushed...
Posted by nayrakroarual at 11:25 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Navigations
Archives
Credits
5 Comments:
Suresh said:
Why must I comment "on the post specifically"? Are you trying to say I haven't? I sense the undertone of an innuendo here - if you have a problem with how my beliefs do not cater to your opinion then let's bring it on.
Oh, and what are our beliefs? Do I have to answer that? If you are interested in changing your religious beliefs, the prompt should definitely not come from me.
Say your religion lets you have sex with the man you're married to just for the pleasure of the senses; you use contraception and avoid the actual purpose of the act.
Then let's say you start feeling that there is something wrong with that - yet your religion permits you such behaviour, then you doubt your religion and you start seeking something which you now feel is true. Then we're looking at the possibility that
you proceed to a successor belief. Now, instead let's suppose you don't feel that there is already something wrong with your religion. If it never crosses your mind of your own accord that there is something wrong, and have to be told by me an alternative
set of practices to come to realization of this (these) weakness(es) in your religion, then we're safe to say that you, yourself, have never truly come to 'grasp' the 'correct' beliefs
. And instead, you're being 'taught' these beliefs. I'm not implying that they are correct or wrong, but even if they are correct, they were certainly 'taught' and not acquired ex nihilo - which in my opinion, then sets you as no true believer.
Let me instead question you: does good exist without a god telling you what to do? This is Fyodor Dostoyevsky's question: what if God were dead? Now, we're not saying He is, but we are supposing what will happen if this could happen... Do we perceive the
world turning to chaos? It is an empathic 'no'. After all, aren't there self-proclaimed atheists to whom it would not matter and would continue their everyday lives? Which brings me to my point, what's wrong with underlying beliefs for a greater good
without the presence of a god? Sure, we would have more practices if there were one to enforce these - but even without one, to the very least, some of what is right or wrong should be decided by ourselves.
1) Sorry, your innuendo does not exist. =) As BK already pointed out on the tagboard, I simply meant that we conduct any further discussion here rather than on the tagboard (where there's a word limit for each tag and everything).
So, just to clarify, I do not have problem with your beliefs not catering to my opinion. That's why it's my opinion, right? I think it's fact, but that's only what I think, that's why it's opinion.
2) Well, I was genuinely interested in knowing what your beliefs are. But it's okay, you don't have to answer it. =) I will ask my Hindu friends.
3-5) Hmm... I'm not quite sure what point you are making here.
5-7) Okay. So in order to be a true believer, one must have come onto his/her own beliefs on his/her own, without being taught such beliefs by another person? If this is what you mean, I don't agree, but it doesn't really matter to me as this is really not the point is it? The point is what these beliefs are, not whether one can be considered a true believer.
8-10) Hmm. If I understand correctly, your point here is that
a) there is nothing wrong with believing in a greater good without the presence of a god ( - does this mean you can believe in a greater good even if there is no god, or you can believe in a greater good and not believe in god?)
b) some of what is right and wrong should be decided by ourselves
Anyway, I'm sorry, I was not attacking you personally on my post. I tried not to, but I suppose my tone came across as harsh rather than simply incredulous. Sorry for offending you =)
1) I am sure you meant that I was not getting where you want, be it "to" or "on", or whether you've shifted your claims. Let's cut the smokescreen on private opinion, you-think-this-that - I don't see how these add value to the discussion at hand - and get to the point.
3-5) Am I not describing what your beliefs allow you? I don't know what philosophy or religion you subscribe to, although your tone is similar to that of many atheists I have come across. But, going directly to the nature of your beliefs: as far as I can infer from your blog, you support promiscuity and individual liberty: access to any desires whatnot, am I wrong? I don't know what your relationship with the countless men you have lewdly commented on is like, but it is my suggestion that this is an avenue where you could realise that what your prior beliefs have allowed for is wrong - because it comes across to me with immediacy that your behaviour in unacceptable within my practices.
5-7) If you are right here, then give me reasons why a rational person 'must' not agree rather than an unevidentiated statement of whether you 'prefer to' agree or not.
You miss the point that I am saying how one should approach this, and not giving you reasons to support my religion. Am I wrong to say that emphasis should be given to both the virtue of the beliefs, as well as that of the practitioners? Let us say for example, if you choose to convert to Judeo-Christianity/Islam in the future after being evangelized or something in some way, but you continue to be promiscuous (once again, I am not accusing you but I am just inferring from your blog and I apologize if that is not the truth because I don't know the person behind the words): then won't it come across that you are inconsistent with your beliefs, even if they are true (let us trivially assume that either of the above are true or close to true)? To present an independent reason to support my point about inconsistency, some religions do not go by the belief that fates have been predetermined or are at least already known by the god figure. It follows then that one could be placed in a situation where no one would have any chance to learn of these beliefs aside from self: i.e. you inherit biases against this religion by virtue of your geography. Now, let us superimpose yourself into two situations: the situation where you, let's say you're fortunate enough to be educated and put in precisely this particular religious background, and let's say you're also, in some parallel universe sort of way (if it allows you to comprehend what I am saying, sure, visualise it this way) are placed in the situation where you are biased against this particular religion. It follows from this hypothesis without much imagination that in the former case, you will without doubt land up being in this particular religion, while you, with the same attitudes and character, in the latter case, will choose not to. And from the concession that there is no predetermined or preconceived future in this (presumably) 'true' religion, we have no other variable that causes this difference besides your environment, then from here we can reach the conclusion of this thought experiment: that even if you are taught certain beliefs and consequently choose to convert to the pertinent religion here, you would never have, deep in your conscience come to place your conviction and faith in these beliefs. And this follows from knowing that you're merely placed in the former situation rather than the latter one; and that you will certainly place your faith elsewhere if you were placed in the latter one. Hence, it follows that if I, or anyone else, is to tell you the teachings of my, or any other religion, and that if as a consequence of it, you CLAIM to now believe in these, it is always possible that you are merely claiming so, and there is a permanent possibility of realization in the parallel situation where you would think elsewise merely if your environment were different. Which carries to my point: what point is there for me to tell you my beliefs, if at no point do you acquire them of your own accord?
8-10) Yes.
I am by no means offended, I only advise in good will to suggest that you practice a little moderation and conservativeness for your own benefit.
Well, Suresh, then I am glad that I have not offended you. Thank you for your concern for me, I will bear in mind what you have said about my lack of moderation and conservation in future.
"I don't know what your relationship with the countless men you have lewdly commented on is like"
hey. what the hell is this?! mr suresh. you have basically got to get this right. this IS after all a kind gesture to open up a discussion. your comment is just but mere personal attacks. dude. you owe the lady an apology. shame on you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home