Religion is Poison

[Avyaydya]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�

There are a few things I see differently...
There is no doubt that the bṛhadarāṇyakopaniṣad (kūrca brāhmaṇa section) and the aitareya upaniṣad - 1st adhyāya, 3rd kanda (or chapter 1 part 3) , gives us a hint to this answer...

Namaste Yajvan,

The assumption you make is that the philosophy of the Vedas is the same as that in the Upanishads. I think it is not. It is almost the opposite. That is why Suda.ji wrote:

Rationally speaking, I would never use Jnana-Kanda to explain Karma-Kanda.

Vivekananda writes in his Lectures and Discourses / Gita 1

To understand the Gita requires its historical background. The Gita is a commentary on the Upanishads. The Upanishads are the Bible of India. They occupy the same place as the New Testament does.
...
The [original] scriptures of the Hindus are called the Vedas.
...
Yet there is another side. The ideal of the first part of the Vedas is entirely different from the ideal of the other part, the Upanishads.
...
Side by side, there was the other system. The Upanishads are diametrically opposite in all their conclusions. First of all, the Upanishads believe in God, the creator of the universe, its ruler. You find later on [the idea of a benign Providence]. It is an entirely opposite [conception]. Now, although we hear the priest, the ideal is much more subtle. Instead of many gods they made one God.
...
Then another great difference between the priests and the Upanishads. The Upanishads say, renounce. That is the test of everything. Renounce everything.
...
So with all these divergences of opinion, I have told you that the priests already differentiated themselves into a separate caste. The second is the caste of the kings. ... All the Upanishadic philosophy is from the brains of kings, not priests.

Your assumption that you can project your monotheistic ideas on the Vedas is refuted by Vivekananda. One can seek confirmation of the ideas in Gita in the Upanishads, the Gita is a continuation of this thinking. But it would also be wrong to see all the Upanishads as one monolithic ideology. What monotheist refuse to accept is that different people and groups have developed different ideas on reality over a long period of time and there is no such thing as absolute ideology that is handed down to us from the supreme God. They can not accept that because they incorporated this idea in their ideology.

Likewise a Christian will never accept the Bible is not the ultimate truth, because ... the bible says it is the ultimate truth. But philosophically speaking quoting books is simply invalid circular reasoning. Ultimately monotheism only relies on belief in its own scriptures. But belief without proof from the senses is no different than imagination, dreaming. That is why monotheism relies on belief and polytheism not. That is why polytheism and science have a common ground that monotheism has not.

As I see it, every monotheistic religion is a separate idea world, a separate imagination, a separate dreamworld. Similar certainly, but separate. It can be full of wisdom and and nice rituals, meaningful tradition etc. But ultimately it is based on ideas written in a book that are subscribed to their supreme God. But these supreme Gods are all different. You can say that Jesus is an avatar of Krishna, but Christians will laugh at you and say Krishna is simply a pre-image of Jesus, a pre-echo of what was to come. You can never win this discussion, monotheists live in an idea world that needs not be in accordance with restrictions of ordinary reality. They create themselves a mind space in which ordinary experience is put upside down. They say things like "Joy is suffering" and "suffering is joy" like this makes sense. It only makes sense in their idea world.

That is why I reject it. I want to live in reality of the senses. I may consider living in a dream if this dream is bringing me a sublime joyful experience. But the message that suffering is joy, and joy is suffering, I do not find attractive. Turning joy in life in freely suffering for a "belief" in moksha is a high gamble that I mostly see desperately unhappy people do. Those that are already deeply suffering seek this as a last resort for happiness. Hope is the virtue on which this belief thrives. But polytheists regarded hope as a sin.

Of course I respect it. If people want to look into the abyss of total annihilation, if they can not only look death eye to eye, but go for the end of it all, the suicide that ends all lives, that certainly is an act of bravery. Whether it is "sensible" to do such drastic thing on something so flimsy as belief, is something every man must decide for himself.

I live in a continent that has been been ravaged by such beliefs. For giving up life for higher ideals are the ideas of the warrior, and endless conflict has accompanied this thinking. And these people by the power of their belief want to make war to the whole world, so all can find the same escape of life.

But for me any belief that is not founded in the senses is indeed non-sense. I choose to follow the Rishis of the Vedas, rather than the Kings of the Upanishads.

Yes these are the two basic opposing philosophies:
- Embrace the world, live in the here and now, make it better for all through dharm
- reject the world, go for the perfect dream world, the ideal world, choose suffering freely.

And in Hinduism both are represented.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Sudas

I saw that you had already mentioned in another thread that you belong to one sampradaya. What do you guys believe? Say a few words about this sampradaya. What is the purpose or goal of your faith, what you mean to live a life of faith is? What is the ultimate goal that you're trying to achieve, or purpose to fulfill?
Is there a concept of liberation in your sampradaya? What do you expect after this life, ie after death?

It appears that you do not place much faith (or importance) in the Upanishads when you try to understand Rig Veda.
What about samhitas of other Vedas: Yajur, Sama and Atharva. How much are they important to you?

How do you guys interpret the verse Rig Veda 1.164.46:

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."

Thanks in advance.


regards

[Sudas Paijavana]

I saw that you had already mentioned in another thread that you belong to one sampradaya...How do you guys interpret the verse Rig Veda 1.164.46:

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."
Thanks in advance.
regards

Jijnasa, in that same thread...I explain this here.

However, I disagree with the notion of this Rica being "core" or more important or greater than any other Rica, since the mere act of discriminating various Rica-s or mantra-s from one another would automatically downplay the idea of Apaurusheya: in other words, one Rica is not superior to another Rica, since them being identified as Rica-s tantamount to them being of divine nature and revelation, that which was heard, not that which was created nor constructed by human hands. R.V.164.46 is no more or less important than a randomly chosen Rica, for example, from hymn R.V.4.5.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste

How do you guys interpret the verse Rig Veda 1.164.46:

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."

I offered one view here : http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...0&postcount=11

Yet this śloka has come up many times over the years on HDF for discussion. I myself think this wisdom is a core śloka of the ṛg ved.


iti śivaṁ

[Avyaydya]

And just a finer point that I consider is the puruṣasūktam from the ṛg ved (10.90); a very intriguing hymn.

and

Yet this śloka has come up many times over the years on HDF for discussion. I myself think this wisdom is a core śloka of the ṛg ved.

Namaste Yajvan,

That is the problem with scripture, the meaning and significance depends on interpretation of the reader. If a person has already made up his mind that monotheism is the original religion and the ancients were expressing that in their mystical way they are surely going to find a few lines of text between millions of lines of text in the Vedas as evidence.

It reminds me of a Muslim who showed me a photograph of a tree in a forest that was bending in the direction of Mecca. This was clear evidence of recognition of Allah. So I asked him why the millions of trees around this tree were not bowing to Mecca. Then surely they all rejected Allah. People rarely want to examine the full consequences of their thinking. They tend to see what is there, not what is missing.

It is so easy to create these misconceptions: For instance suppose you read these texts by Cicero a great Roman orator and philosopher:

Next to God we are nothing.
To God we are Everything.

and

What gift has providence bestowed on man that is so dear to him as his children?

Such lines may easily convince people Cicero believed in a Supreme God. But nothing is further from the truth. Cicero does not believe in a Supreme God, but a pantheistic God. A Purusha. He absolutely sees no reason to believe a Supreme God would steer the world. It is not that ancient philosophers did not know this monotheistic idea, but they flat-out rejected it as unscientific. To them these were fables of the common people, who wanted to believe in a fatherly God watching over them.

The way Cicero describes God reminds of Brahman:

Just as the soul fills the body, so God fills the world. Just as the soul bears the body, so God endures the world. Just as the soul sees but is not seen, so God sees but is not seen. Just as the soul feeds the body, so God gives food to the world.

And do not think for a moment Cicero's God is steering the world:

it is improbable that the material substance which is the origin of all things was created by divine Providence. It has and has always had a force and nature of its own.

But even if we find a rare old text that seems to collaborate our view we may also remind this wisdom of Cicero:

There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.

But if we are true scientists and not mere believers we dare ask ourselves. If the writers of the Vedas were believers in the Supreme God why is it not full with adoration of Him like other monotheistic text. Why is he not mentioned abundantly in every page? If he is the alpha and omega why do the texts not start and end with him? Why is it not full of hymns to him? But there is nothing of the kind. Or as Cicero would say:

as a philosopher, I have a right to ask for a rational explanation of religious faith.

Lets not forget monotheism did not conquer the world by the power of its philosophical arguments. The Greek-Roman philosophical schools rejected it and ridiculed it. So angry monotheists closed the schools, killed all the critics, and send mobs to destroy all the temples. Then they used the army to destroy pagan places of worship and kill the people that revolted all over the empire. By monopolizing the school system they were able to get these ideas accepted but only after many centuries. There are no convincing philosophical arguments for monotheism as it is based on belief. All arguments are derived from quoting their own scripture. But philosophers regard this as circular reasoning and not valid science.

Without confirmation of the senses belief is no different than holding on to imagination, dreaming, fantasy. Then religion becomes shared imagination. I think is wrong to say that is what the Rishis did. The Vedas are all about the senses, the Gods are directly connected to our senses as much as they are connected to Nature around us.

[Mana]

Dear All,

Namaste.

Just a few thoughts stimulated by this thread.

As if it were necessary to re iterate such a pertinent point; never the less, I find that I can not help myself.

Yet I have been taught throughout history that wise walked on this earth. That sākṣātkāra (intuitive perception , realization) was not quarantined to any restrictive place . So, there were those that knew of Being and lived it in their daily lives. Hence it is my deduction that the truth of Reality fell from their lips to the people that would choose to hear it (mumukṣuvta).

This is absolutely wonderful; A delightful praise and salutation to the ṛṣi.

It would seem to me that this discussion as argument, is somewhat futile, as we read in the bhagavad gita, the the Supreme, as manifest in our small portion of nārāyaṇa, vasudeva is, just as stated in the 11th chapter.
A concept and vision that is terribly frightening to most.

In exactly the same way that all living things are a part of a bigger whole, the Paramātmā; So are all the Devas & Devi.
Every peacocks eye is a small part of the bigger bird, the harmonious nature of their manifestation is just as glorious as there singular existence, however they are worn.
Indriya and Devas are the descent our senses; the buds of the flowering Ahaṃkāra. Which is as cyclic, self supporting and mathematically bound; as are communally, the verse of the ṛṣi ...

It is my personal opinion that in the previous ages; this was quite simply instinctively known and quite readily seen; thus the generally better behaviour from all of human kind; no need for moksha as nothing was to desire escape from, the present state being that of harmony or equilibrium. This was reflected in the rituals and words of the time.

Perhaps, this view is simply a reflection of the philosophy that I study.

Kind regards.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste

That is the problem with scripture, the meaning and significance depends on interpretation of the reader.

I see your point and it is well grounded... yet the point of view I offer is not of my authorship. It is of my teacher/guru whose vision is not marred (niṣkalaṅka¹). I then find it reliable and without flaw. Any flaws can only be due to the jaundice (ignorance) that may appear in my eyes.
This is why I do not argue points of view ( I am not suggesting this is jalpa¹ by the way); I am quite at home with the knowledge I have been afforded. I do not have to prove it to the nth degree ( that is code for feeding the ego what it wants - attention for no other reason then to consume attention and make 'me-ness' swell) . My offer is to share what I know, to hone my knowledge via study, direct experience, etc. and uplift when ever the opportunity arises...
That was my ~assignment~ given to me.

iti śivaṁ

words

• jalpa - a kind of disputation (overbearing reply and disputed rejoinder)
• niṣkalaṅka - stainless; without blemish

[Anima Deorum]

Philosophy is only one of many stories, though particularly tragic. For all his grace of elocution, for example, Dawkins cannot detect his blunderous conflation of nomological and metaphysical necessity in the first chapter of "The God Delusion." Some account he supplants for the origin of infinity! I wonder if they will ever topple their windmills.

[Mana]

Namaste Anima Deorum,

... I wonder if they will ever topple their windmills.

It is the oil refineries that concern me the most.

Liquid forest is most defiantly a poison; its interests have fuelled the direction of the philosophy and vise-versa for a hundred years or more, due to its integration with the fundamental economic axiom of expansion rather than flow.

Kind regards.

[Anima Deorum]

Namaste, Mana.

That's an interesting point of view. I appreciate your sharing--thank you. "Extension" is a western obsession. I like your notion of economic influence upon cognitive syntax and context. The drama, I imagine, has its roots in a much older conflict of elements.

Pranam.