[Assam] Nirvana of the soul

[Chan Mahanta]

>Really! So, what did you expect that a new Hindu Gita be presented 
>for the sake of keeping up to the times. How do you base this 
>intellectual foundation (or lack of it)? What are your suggestions 
>to inculcate this foundation amonst this lost flock (of Hindus) who 
>clearly don't possess any intellectual foundation in their religious 
>moorings?



*** I have NO obligation or need to help the  Hindu religion, or for 
that matter ANY religion. Remember I am an avowed atheist Ram :-)?


>So, what did you expect that a new Hindu Gita be presented for the 
>sake of >keeping up to the times.

*** But for a religion to make a positive difference in society it 
has to be able to demonstrate that it is more than a collection of 
rituals and superstitions, that it is an intellectually tenable 
entity and that it is relevant to this life too, to its flock. 
Reciting the Gita is not enough. Sure Hindus have been doing it for 
ages, but look where it has taken their society.

Oh yes, I know! They have not turned into Jehadis. But that may be an 
useful explanation for Tom Friedman or those whose preoccupation is 
with Kashmir's ownership, competition with Pakistan or the dread of 
the  lungi-menace. Does not do India any good.

*** Finally, the issue of absence of FAITH . If it is absent in 
Hinduism, then what IS the BASIS of that  belief in the SOUL and a 
God? That remains shrouded in mystery in the hoary world of spinning 
for respectability. But respect comes not from spinning, but from an 
ability to demonstrate with action.
















At 11:22 AM -0600 3/17/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>C'da,
>
>  >*** You have a spotty record of interpreting HT's intentions 
>Ram. >On that basis, I can understand the spin. But to me it is 
>quite >clear what HT had in mind about the FAITH he referred to 
>above.
>
>It might have come out that way, but (honest) I did not try to spin it away.
>
>As for the faith part, look at this : --- "joto mot toto poth" >(as 
>many opinions, that many paths) -
>That is NOT from himen da. And whatever H'da intentions (take) on 
>this are - the fact remain that Hinduism does NOT strictly enforce 
>its rules. It may be a weakness if you will (or a strength for 
>some), and it may well produce people that :
>
>  > If an imbecile identifying himself as a Hindu wants to exorcise 
>Christian demons >from converts,because that is his mental level 
>allows him to perceive, he is FREE >to do that! Or treat Muslim 
>worse than stray dogs as the Bongali Hindu Zamindars >did in the 
>erstwhile East Bengal,they did just that. Powerful religious 
>freedom >here, ain't it?
>
>  >It is mostly devoid of any intellectual foundation. Everything 
>refers >back to the ancients,
>
>Really! So, what did you expect that a new Hindu Gita be presented 
>for the sake of keeping up to the times. How do you base this 
>intellectual foundation (or lack of it)? What are your suggestions 
>to inculcate this foundation amonst this lost flock (of Hindus) who 
>clearly don't possess any intellectual foundation in their religious 
>moorings?
>
>--Ram
>
>
>
>
>
>On 3/17/06, Chan Mahanta 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>At 9:41 AM -0600 3/17/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
>>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".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>*** Really?
>
>
>  >As for the Hindu "faith", the strangest part is that there is no 
>"faith" in >Hinduism ---every individual is free to believe anything 
>suitable to the mental >level of that individual, there is no order, 
>no command,  no doctrine, no >dogma, no conversion, no exclusion, no 
>punishment,   --- "joto mot toto poth" >(as many opinions, that many 
>paths) --- if YajurVeda talks about "Boikuntho" as  >an astral plane 
>at a higher level", so does Mandukya Upanishad talk about >Advaita 
>leading to Nirvana.
>
>
>
>  >Referring to astral plane of Boikuntha where the "soul" will go 
>for "'life >after life'", you asked "Is that where one goes after 
>they achieve Nirvana?" As >I understand, Nirvana is not Death. It is 
>a State of Existence.
>
>
>
>
>*** Look at the highlighted assertion above Ram. If an imbecile 
>identifying himself as a Hindu wants to exorcise Christian demons 
>from converts,because that is his mental level allows him to 
>perceive, he is FREE to do that! Or treat Muslim worse than stray 
>dogs as the Bongali Hindu Zamindars did in the erstwhile East 
>Bengal,they did just that. Powerful religious freedom here, ain't it?
>
>
>Similarly if his mental state offers one no more than a bunch of 
>superstitions and rituals to wrap oneself up in, that's it! That is 
>Hinduism for that person!
>
>
>That DOES make sense though, in a bizarre way. Because that seems to 
>be the state of Hinduism today. It is mostly devoid of any 
>intellectual foundation. Everything refers back to the ancients, as 
>if what they discovered was IT and no further development, evolution 
>is possible, other than to spin it or  sanitize it to fit political 
>needs of the times.
>
>
>*** You have a spotty record of interpreting HT's intentions Ram. On 
>that basis, I can understand the spin. But to me it is quite clear 
>what HT had in mind about the FAITH he referred to above.
>
>
>*** It would be nice if we had a clarification from the presenter of 
>the assertion himself. But as I explained to Rajen the other day, it 
>is unlikely to appear, like the answers to the questions Rajen 
>asked; unless of course I missed them :-).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  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 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> 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
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060317/fc59304c/attachment.htm>