Disclaimer: This kinda started out as a comment on this blog, but eventually I had to relegate it to its own space ;-). I do not wish to be didactic or presumptious or stand on the "soapbox", but just have something to say. Please bear with me
Any philosophical idea is open to interpretation. The true measure of the universality of a theory lies in its ability to be interpretable from any angle. The interpretation is but a review. It is modulated with the frequencies of the carrier ;-), the translator. Unfortunately, some interpretations have ulterior motives, and are presented with good or malicious intent. (Examples of this are the contortion of Jihad in the Quran, and the Vedas-Atomic bomb angle suggested). However, in order to understand the original idea you go straight to the original text and try and fathom it yourself.
The original idea of Hinduism is that God is everywhere, within oneself and without oneself. So one simply imbibes God and loves him. In order to do so, scriptures have suggested several clearly defined procedures (refer to the Gita, where Arjuna actually asks Krishna to outline a set of guidelines for him). Many people over the ages have followed these guidelines and reportedly attained bliss. Neither the content seems ambiguous nor the procedures undefined. The question is of proving authenticity.
It is true that the scriptures ARE just points of view. So are most scientific theories. The difference is just that a form of proof has been provided to these theories by experimetation and mathematics. For example, if you were to question the truth of Einstein's theories of relativity, one would prove it to you, but not before you had undergone several years of intense tutoring in math and physics to attain the level to understand these theories. Most people decide to take the easy route and take these as axioms, while others take the harder route and actually go all the way and understand them.
Similarly, people have announced themselves as having attained God by following the words of the scriptures. Some of us accept their word for it and accept the nature of the scriptures as axiomatic. Others experiment and are either successful or unsuccessful. Yet some more simply declare themselves sceptics without any experimentation. Any which way, it is a personal choice, based on how badly you want to understand God and for what reasons.
Finally, looking at various religions as competing perspectives would be incorrect, since all religions essentially preach the same thing. I would rather think of them as co-existing methodologies - some clear and some vague to the common man.
5 comments:
Good analogy champ
kewl!! great analogy.
ibl, you are right. Sanskrit is like mathematics. It is precise, but difficult to fathom for Joe Shmoe.
Looks like this is panning out to be a bigger discussion than initially intended. Read void's post on DSS. pretty cool! good going, dawg!
Mindsurfer;
the quoted, is an old analogy quite deader than the equine you have tortured.
There is a strong propensity amongst people to misinterpret religiousness and religion...thats very evident in this discussion.
ano's blog questioned religiousness, while reshmi went on to subliminally defend the values and from then on its a spastic comparision with science and religion. I do understand your theories of interpretations, but by definition, religions serve precisely that purpose.
The problem arises when religion is mistaken as a set of moral codes or as a way of life...but an integral part of human consciousness. Without any subject of a priori scriptures are worthless.if you identify that then both science and religion collapse like twin towers dawning the next reality that comparisons are illogical between thenmselves and other religions, they quite simply are running different races, though they are running!
if you are into religions, you would know that hindu scriptures permit a multitude of interpretations beacuse of the simple fact that they were accumulated by many people over an eloborate period of time, and most crucially it wasnt the religion that was borne out of need, but a religion that chased the need.
and as per your axioms i largely agree, but on a different take ,i would dare not make the mistake of committing science and religion as two objects independent of humanity....and in this light the falsifiabilty does not hold at all.
If you want axioms to understand religion and thereby human consciousness, here goes
1.There is no way to apply poppers criteria for darwin's theory(not law mind you) so by definition (of science)how is it different from religion??
2.How can you prove to any tukaram to believe sun rises in the east?(here your analogy works)
3.and my favorite axiom from jap author mishima(which is a prelude to understand consciousness and religion and deficiency of science)
I love me, you love me, so lets love each other.
I am certain i would have added to the confusion.personally speaking, I have come to an harmony in the judgements of kierkegaard, vyasa and goethe and joyce of religion.
Overman ;)
Thanks for the comments. In essence, I believe you agree with me on most points here, actually (consciously or not, I cannot say, though).
Unfortunately, I am not a broadly-read person and only just started taking an interest in reading anything philosophical.I attribute the above passage and analogy solely to my own thoughts, however, if I have inadvertently repeated the thoughts of many others from before me, I must have been right somewhere, to have concurred with so many others.
The equine has been tortured before, and YET, we still continue to do so. Probably, we have not found the answer yet. It is a good sign, however, that we still give thought to the interpretation and practice of religious thoughts without following dogmas.
" I do understand your theories of interpretations, but by definition, religions serve precisely that purpose."
- This is precisely what I said in the first two lines of my blog. I have unsuccessfully tried to comprehend the difference you are trying to point out between "A way of life" and "an integral part of our consciouness".
Similarly, you will pardon my limited language capabilities when I do not comprehend your comment - "it wasn't the religion that was borne out of need, but a religion that chased the need."
Regardless, I believe we are saying the same thing, and that seems like the best way to let the horse rest in peace ;-)
Post a Comment