Re: [Assam] Nirvana of the soul

[Ram Sarangapani]

C'da

 

>Unfortunately you went completely OFF on a tangent, missing the >objective of my question

 

I don't think so. Himen da's take on "faith" seems to be based on practice of the faith (if you read his post carefully) as opposed to "belief". Inthe sense he is meaning it - Hinduism has no faith. In the context you put it - yes Hindus do believe in the soul, and the here after etc. And in that sense other religions too have "faith".

 

Faith is IMHO, the unquestioning belief in the religion. But even in that sense, Hindus do question more vehemently than adherents of other faiths. After all, the risk is minimal - there are no fatwas or burning at the stakes for those who don't meet the standards set by someone claiming to be the know-it-all.

--Ram

 

On 3/17/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ram:

 

Thanks for your attempt. You surely spent time trying to educate me. I appreciate that. Seriously -- I am not kidding.

 

Unfortunately you went completely OFF on a tangent, missing the objective of my question. And it happened, once again, due to this damned English language we have to put up with.

 

The term 'faith' was not about rituals, practises, customs and so forth. It was about the belief in the concept of "SOUL" and since Himendra Thakur connected it with atheism ( atheists' 'misdirected' lack of belief in it) about the belief in GOD/s.

 

That belief in the SOUL and as connected by HT, in God, has to have some moorings, foundations. In them 'semitic' religions :-), it springs from FAITH! You don't question the existence of God. HE  happens ( as in those bumper-stickers, I am sure) ! You take it, or else be condemned as an atheist with all the rights and privileges that comes with the label.Therefore it could be argued, that these 'semitic' religions are not very sophisticated, intellectually speaking. They just hand you a dogma and you swallow it, or else!

 

 

But Hinduism, does not have any FAITH, as HT declared! Far more sophisticated, than them dogma-driven 'semitic' religions. NO, HT , did not say that. But it logically follows the  theorem. Remember the argument you made yesterday, how some glib talkers promote certain religions with smooth-talk,

 

"

 Only some of us try to cloak it very cleverly, while the naive tell it as it is."   ?

 

while the plain-spoken ones blurt out the truth as they see 'em, warts and all ?

 

 

Intellectually, the revelation left this air-head as discombobulated as ever, leading to wonder if Hinduism's beliefs as in the SOUL and God, therefore is based on superior logic, on greater truths, on solid PROOFs, not available to those FAITH based 'semitic' ones.

 

That Ram, was the question. ONE of them that is. And it remains unanswered.

 

I will explore some other questions about HT's declarations yesterday, but later. Let us see if we can get this one resolved.

 

c-da

 

 

 

 

 

 

At 11:45 PM -0600 3/16/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:

C'da,

 

>Can anyone help? Ram perhaps? I would have asked the writer himself, if I could.

>But I suspect my questions won't be honored :-).

 

This is a very interesting topic. Though I consider myself to have only superficial knowledge about this,

I will nevertheless take the bait (based on the theory -  "fools rush in where.......").

So, here goes (its a long drawn answer)"

 

I have actually heard this about the "lack of faith" in Hinduism from a number of knowledgeable people.

 

The way it has been described to me was that in Hinduism, its adherents are free to choose any number of paths to attain "Bikunta".

There are in realtity no hard and fast rules for practicing the "faith". This lack of faith is often referred to as "freedom to practice" in numerous ways.

 

That is waht Himen da probably means. Some examples: In Christianity - Sunday Mass is obligatory. in Islam, praying 5 times etc.

I hinduism, though - one can be as strigent or lax as they want with the "rules". Even if they eat beef, there is "praschitya" or penance etc.

 

Now, one can say these are all the clever ways that the Bamuns came up with (to make money). Could be? But assuming that other religions' leaders would have also have the same aspirations (money), why do they impose the rules strictly?

 

Some of the effects of a loosely knit Hindu "faith"

Not cohesive,

Has created so many ways to pray to the Almighty

Far too many interpretations.

(For example, you think Hindus have many Gods - I don't. I think Hindus have only one God,

and the rest are mere manifestations or facets)

Far too dis-organized, thus not as powerful as other religions. No central command (like the Pope/or the Imam).

Want a Hindu priest? - there is one around the corner. Want a Hindu Religious leader? You have choice from Sankracharya,

Vivekananda, Sai Baba, to Bal Thakeray and Naren Modi.

And there is NO compulsion to believe in any of them.

I don't think there are any rules in Hinduism, that one can break and NOT get back in.

One can always pay penance and get back in.

 

BUT there is one cardinal rule that cannot be broken - one has to be born a Hindu.

That I think is Hinduism's weak point - acceptability factor. That is why there is no conversion into Hinduism.

 

For what its worth - Hinduism does have a strong philosophical content in it. You may pooh, pooh it,

but is is recognized the world over for that.

 

BTW: I am a prime example of the Hindu "faith" - a burger, steak eating, crossed the Xat-Xagor, hardly ever praying to the Gods, etc etc -

but I believe I can safely say I am still a Hindu, because  I feel like it (and as long as I want) and no "leader" is going to chase me out as a heretic

or pass a fatwa.

--Ram

 

_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org