Ham Priday, I appreciate your patient interest. Here is my reply:
>As a Hindu, do you consider yourself an atheist? No, I am not atheist. I believe in God, but not the God that billions over the world worship -- the kind of God that you pray to for success, the kind of God that helps you when you're in trouble, the kind of God that is your friend. God is all these and beyond. See, God is a mere name, a name for the highest power of the universe, or the fundamental essence of the universe. Hence, at least in Hindu thought, everyone believes in God, except that they vary slightly in their concepts about this highest power. To know Hinduism, you should read its scriptures, and not rely on what Hindus appear to be. Let me ask you: how do you recommend me to learn more about Christ? By asking a person who calls himself Christian or by reading the Bible correctly? Some British officers of the East India Company were always willing to criticise India by showcasing her degenerate aspects to the world, portraying them as primary to India than her scriptures. It was an attempt based entirely in delusion and arrogance. People are never perfect, only the revealed scriptures are. (The concept of revelation is not foreign to Abrahamic religions so I need not justify faith in it). Hinduism is not a religion. The name is Sanatana Dharma, which means the Eternal Law. Actually, the word "dharma" means "that which holds together (society)". Right now all this may sound like another Easterner with his peculiar philosophy, but if you have patience, I can assure you that discovering the real philosophy of Hinduism will be the greatest reward that God could ever bless you with. I don't blame you, I am in fact encouraging you. It's not like I'm trying to convert you, please don't have that impression. Google for "vedas speed of light", "rig veda clifford algebra", "sanskrit grammar computer science", or refer to this site: http://www.hinduwisdom.info/, which has enough information to convince you). >This is what I can't fathom. Such realization cannot be experience (because >everything experienced is differentiated and relative).. I haven't had mystic experiences myself, so I can not comment on this without making errors, except if I quote some text. For starters, you might want to start with Swami Vivekananda or Sri Aurobindo, whose writings are an excellent introduction to Hindu thought for Westerners (Aurobindo was raised in a Western background and knew Latin and Greek). >As a "reconfirmed" Hindu, Akshay, to what extent can (do) you incorporate >the MoQ ideology into your philosophy? I see the MoQ ideology as a degenerate subset of ancient Hindu thought. I am not undermining Pirsig's originality or his intellectual capabilities, I am merely stating what would be obvious if Hindu thought were to be compared with Pirsig's metaphysics. I do not hold any intention of being offensive or of attempting to convert anybody. I interpret the MoQ in my own way, although it does happen that I deviate from what Pirsig might have wanted. Akshay On 11/01/2008, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Akshay -- > > You are a Hindu who has "rebelled". I've been reading Hirsi Ali's > "Infidel" > which is about a Muslim who has renounced Islam. She now considers > herself > an atheist. As a Hindu, do you consider yourself an atheist? > > I raise this question because a person's philosophy is often influenced by > his religion, and since most of the people here have rejected religion, > they > are atheists. I grew up in a Protestant household but was never religious > in the biblical sense, although I believe man's nature is innately > spiritual > in that it seeks the supernatural source of its existence. You seem to > imply that this supernatural source is DQ (Prakrti?), and that we can be > aware of it by becoming one with DQ. > > > Then there is no individuality, and you realize that you are DQ, > > not in the sense of you vs the others but in the sense that you > > are the all-pervading seer. > > This is what I can't fathom. Such realization cannot be experience > (because > everything experienced is differentiated and relative).. So I assume that > one can only be aware of it conceptually--as an idea or theory. > For me, this sort of conceptual worldview is a philosophy. In my > philosophy > (Essentialism) the primary source is Essence, and plurality is the > appearance of the source to a sensible subject which has been separated > from > it. (Of course, this is not acknowledged by the MoQ whose followers > consider it a "theistic" concept.) > > As a "reconfirmed" Hindu, Akshay, to what extent can (do) you incorporate > the MoQ ideology into your philosophy? In other words, how has Pirsig's > theory influenced your worldview? Since we all experience the universe in > the same way, I find it strange that we all seem determined to explain it > differently. > > I've read a lot about this mystery from a Western viewpoint. As a Hindu, > perhaps you can enlighten me on it from the Eastern perspective. > > Thanks for your interest, Akshay. > > Regards, > Ham > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
