@sm: Agree
@Param: Do watch the video when you get time.
यस्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मैवाभूद्विजानत:।
तत्र को मोह: क: शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यत:॥ ७॥
Vannakkam Sadhaka et al: Basically I'm with Param. I simply don't have time to delve into such things, so I will just trust others on here that the guy is rational.
I'm not particularly rational. Its not blind faith, but I don't see how rationality can explain some of the things I've done in so-called bhakti moments.
Aum Namasivaya
Some of the things he speaks of come right out of my mouth to my own children! He is certainly kindred kind to me.
Perhaps on of our only difference is that I have had those "mystical/spiritual experiences" he speaks of so I do have that personal proof. I like that he leaves room for these ones who have had such experiences and respects this.
I put the lecture on while crocheting, so I was able to multi task it.
Namaste,
EM & Param, it's absolutely fine. To each his own. We're all seekers of truth and obviously different paths work for different people.
NayaSurya, what he speaks of is exactly what we believe, but he explains it in the light of neuroscience.
Glad to know that you liked it
OM
यस्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मैवाभूद्विजानत:।
तत्र को मोह: क: शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यत:॥ ७॥
I am a very great admirer of Sam Harris (even had the pleasure of watching his debate live in London and having him sign my copy of The Moral Landscape and The End of Faith).
Actually he was the first of "the four horsemen of atheism" (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens) to have his book published, solely on the topic of faith.
If any one is interested - here is the podcast of talk I mentioned - http://soundcloud.com/intelligence2/...the-science-of
Hope you all like it
Mayank
Namaste. The western atheist camp gained prominence in recent times only because they have attacked Christianity (and Islam) without any scruples, undoubtedly so many Europeans initially and Americans later joined them and cheered them. The plot thickens. The above 4 mentioned in post #17 vocal atheists gained a huge boost when in his last week’s Guardian interview the acclaimed physicist, Stephen Hawking, declared that ‘heaven is a fairy tale’. As someone said above it is fun to watch Hitchens tearing the evangelists apart on prime time TV . Please google him on youtube when you want to have some free entertainment. Hitchens is now cancer stricken sadly.
They (the atheists) are not new though, as they all admirably acknowledged on their own that ‘they are standing on the tall shoulders of some of the ancestors who had it rough in the past’ (in the hands of euro evangelists of course).Here I must underscore that in Dharmic setting it is an old news, charvakas and nastiks were there all along and in recent times, they call themselves as Indian Rationalist Association
The hindu diaspora has nothing much to worry about atheists, ‘cause when the latter flout the bhakti aspect or even the deities of the hinduism, we can let it pass without interruption and then invite them to debate the advaita philosophy and the ‘pure’ doctrines of the faith. It is the mythology they pick on and attack because mythology for them looks as the weakspot. The much promoted consciousness fits in the realm of ‘oneness of it all’ concept of SD, so we must rightfully draw parallels between advaita and the consciousness concepts. We can then look square in the eye and ask them. ’so fellas, whats new?”.
So therefore the westerners admire atheists as the atheists have dismantled both hell and heaven conclusively, and thus the westerners are free now from the throttling compulsion to tow the line of church. No pastor of substance can declare heaven and hell null and void, he knows he will be excommunicated pronto. Atheists by all means can wean the abrahamics away from the heaven and hell camp and inadvertently toss them towards Hinduism. Good for them!! Shanti.
Last edited by charitra; 27 May 2011 at 07:19 PM.
Charitra you made some interesting points, and I for one agree with you wholeheartedly when it comes to the distinction between the different faiths and beliefs. For example, citing Harris, no one ever need worry about Jain suicide bombers, because the more fanatic they become the less violent they tend to be.
So with the point about the comparison of merits and defects of Abrahamic doctrines against eastern philosophies aside, I would like to bring another concept into this discussion. And that is the idea of defining our terms.
What I mean by that is that when someone says that they are a Christian, you can deduce from that comment that the individual, for example, must believe that Christ came back from the dead three days after being crucified, that he was born of a virgin, that God stopped the sun so that Joshua could finish his battle, that Jonah survived in the belly of a "great fish", that two of every living creature were brought onto an ark by a man named Noah etc, etc. Of course you will get cafeteria Christians who would believe the first two impossibilities and not the rest, for example. However what it means to be a Christian, amongst other things, is to believe that these impossible occurrences did in fact take place.
Similarly what it means to be a Muslim, to define that term, would have to include complete belief in the idea about the meeting between the archangel Gabriel and the possibly epileptic prophet Mohammed in the cave, the constant messaging between God and Mohammed with convenient revelations whenever he needed it, the idea that he alone brought the last revelation from the creator of the universe, the rising of Mohammed to heaven on a winged horse etc.
So my question then would have to be, and it is a sincere query on my part as this forms part of my primary reason for posting on these forums, how do you define the term Hindu and Hinduism? I ask this because the vast number of schools of thought and the elasticity of the affirmations that exist within Hinduism, run the risk of rendering the term irrelevant. So what does it mean to be a Hindu? What tenets must you affirm to be allowed that title? And finally, given the many ideologies within the "umbrella term" Hinduism, many of which are contradictory, how would you surmise the basic tenets?
Namaste. In your critique you brought up only the skin-deep mythohistory (no one is sure where history ends and mythology begins) that envelops the belief system and sadly avoided any mention of far more vital skeleton support of said faiths, which is the doctrinal system of the same faiths. Mythohistory supplies mouthwatering feast to the insatiable intellectuals who operate in the level playfield called comparative religion. Any aspect of mythology can be used to tarnish any belief system, thus mythology remains the punch bag regardless of the name of the faith, and Hinduism is no exception. It is a slippery slope and one cannot find place to hide if one elects to propel mythology as one’s mainstay of one’s faith.
For me it is the doctrines like dharma, karma, atman and Brahman, rebirth and moksha that keep my ego under check. Advaita or nondualism is right at the top of the list of hindu thought process, and understandably other hindus may think differently. You questioned diversity element within the hindu fold, I think that won’t compromise the above common doctrinal frame work, sampradayas’ with all their denominational differences notwithstanding.
It is the doctrines that are expected to lead one to one’s salvation or moksha that set apart one faith from the next. Om Shanti.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks