Dear sanjaya, Greetings!
Thank you for your response. Let me give my clarifications and then some responses. I apologize, it is long.
The reason I cited Charvaka and others from the past was not to claim authenticity from the past, only to show that the friction you noted between theists and atheists existed all along, and there is no reason to think that the fresh crop of atheists like Hitchins is any more or any less confrontational compared to the past going all the way back to the time of early thinkers.
But, I do accept your point that there is no need to be confrontational. No reasoned debate is possible without civility. What I do not agree is that the recent crop of atheists is imposing their POV on anyone. I was a dried in the wool theist at one time, performing tri-kala sandhyavandhanams, and salagrama aradhanai everyday without fail. I never eat anything that was not prasadam. Yet, I did not feel Dawkins, Harris, et al. imposed anything on me. They made me think. Even the most aggressive of the lot, Hitchins, debated his own brother and the crackpot Dinesh D’souza, and not once did he lose his temper or impose anything on anybody.
Having said that, many do think the so-called The Four Horsemen (
) Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens are too confrontational. Some fellow atheists like Tyson have said that. They think changing the mind of theists takes a more gentle approach.
I think these criticisms are not valid. Theists have forced the atheists to stay in the closet for far too long. It is time to come out and flaunt a little. It will settle down. Once the atheists are free of fear of social stigma, when it is accepted as a natural state, then even the few atheists who are belligerent will no longer feel the need to be confrontational. Early in the LGBT movement, some the openly homosexuals flaunted their homosexuality mainly for this reason – rebellion against a prudish society. These days, they have become as boring as the rest of us.
BTW, have you seen Jonathan Miller’s three-part BBC series entitled “A Brief History of Disbelief? He is ever so gentle. Even the much criticized four horsemen ridicule only the extreme beliefs of the fundamentalist types, primarily Christian and Muslim -- but Hinduism is not free of this type of kooks.
Originally Posted by
sanjaya
However, consider that one of your charges against Hinduism is that we hand down theological truths, and expect the masses to believe them on account of their antiquity…… but this sounds very similar to your appeal to atheism's long history as a justification for the New Atheists that I mentioned.
I don’t think authenticity of the claims of theist is derived from just their antiquity, but from the claim that they were revealed by the only true god, their god, and therefore inerrant. Further, questioning the validity of these claims is blasphemy. The flock is kept in line with the threat of eternal damnation, as in the case of Christianity and Islam, and at least a sojourn in hell and a polluting rebirth in the case of Hinduism. All religions have their way of imposing faith in handed down wisdom.
This is certainly not the case with atheists. Atheism is a return to normal state when a thinking person finds out that theism is just handed down doctrine. This realization comes not from simply believing another handed down and inerrant doctrine of say, Charvaka, or Budda, or Ingersoll, or even Dawkins, but from a critical analysis of the arguments these people present. Only if they persuade you by their logic and evidence, then you return to your original state that others call atheist. But for an infinitesimal few, parents and the larger society don’t permit children to develop naturally, they drill their handed down religious beliefs into them. Bombarded with theism from all sides, children get corrupted early on.
Originally Posted by
sanjaya
…..Again, Dawkins is speaking in a Christian context, and this is a fine argument against Christianity. But it does nothing to discredit Hindu theism. I've never known any Hindu to have visions of pink unicorns, nor do I know any Hindus who've met such creatures. I do know of Hindus who have experienced God and have met living incarnations of God.
Now we are entering the deep crevasses of theism. In this realm, I don’t know how you can say Hinduism does not have its own versions of the IPU, the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Please permit me to give some examples of Hindu IPUs, no scorn is intended. Ithihasa puranas are full of IPUs. Shiva is supposed to be half man, half woman, with water sprouting from his head, with a sliver of a moon that never waxes or wanes. Vishnu is supposed to lie on a snake bed in an ocean of milk, with a stem coming out of his belly button that supports a four-faced Brahmma, actually he once had five faces, but shiva cut one off. You see, Hinduism is not free of its own set of IPUs.
Perhaps you are referring to the philosophical angle of Hinduism as presented in the Upanishads. Even here, we run into IPUs with the elaborate descriptions of creation and the 24, 25, or 26 tatvas and so on.
I am not denying that the main target of The Four Horsemen is indeed Christianity. That is because they live in that culture. But their opposition to religion is not limited to Christianity alone. There are enough atheists in India taking on the IPUs of Hinduism.
…. New Atheists, […] usually level the same charges against Jews as they do against Christians. Given that Jews are just as tolerant and peaceful as Hindus, this behavior surprises me and suggests to me that the New Atheists are as arrogant as I think they are.
No sanjaya, it is not the peacefulness they question, but faith in a god, a god, if their bible is to be believed, who is not above acting like a genocidal maniac.
In any case, whether somebody is arrogant or not is often a judgment call. So, if you find atheists arrogant, all I can say is I don’t find them so .
There are a couple independent points I want to address here. First, I disagree with the claim that tolerance includes respect.
Perhaps the word respect goes a little too far, but what I meant was something like this dictionary definition of tolerance: “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry”
I think Hindus fall short on most counts of this definition. It is not apathy, it is contempt. As you go higher up in the ladder of varna/caste among Hindus, the level contempt rises in a non-linear fashion. Neither Buddisim nor Jainism was eradicated through debate alone. There are verses in the Azhvar poems in which violence against Buddas and Jainas is extolled as righteous acts. There is a specific mention in the hagiography of Sri Vaishnava acharayas of an instance when Ramanuja, having defeated his Jain opponents in the present daya Karnataka, won over the king and had all the defeated Jains put to death in a horrifying way. Ramanuja himself was hounded out of sri Rangam on religious grounds, and the eyes of his aged acharya and at least one disciple were gouged out. The acharya died immediately.
And then there was Raja Raja, and Rejendra Chola. They expanded their Hindu empire across East Asia by sword. Though not to the extent of Christians and Muslims, Hindus also are guilty of expansionist wars far beyond their natural borders..
Secondly, I believe that your portrayal of the Hindu varna system is not accurate.
It is here that I think I am on most firm ground. The Moguls are not to blame. The English are not to blame. Hindus, and the upper caste in particular, have to stand up and take responsibility and make amends.
Lord Sri Krishna in Srimat BG, with what he said and what he did not say, clearly indicates Varna is inherited by birth. Among Arjuna’s fears was that the war will result in the women being unprotected and consequently get raped, which will then result in Varna sangraha. Arjuna cites clan elders as the source of his views.
So, this was the prevalent thinking at that time, namely, if women get raped, varna sangharaha will result. This can be so only if Varna results from birth. In the succeeding 17 chapters, Lord Sri Krishna gives answers to many of Arjuna’s questions, never once does he dissuade him of this view. But Lord Sri Krishna goes even further. In chapter 9, he says, even the ones of sinful birth, such as vaishya, sudra and women, can attain moksham by surrendering to him, so surely Arjuna of punya birth certainly can. So, Lord Sri Krishna clearly teaches that Varna results from birth which itself is determined by punya and papa.
So, if BG is to be believed, then for Lord Sri Krishna, varana is birth based. If you visit kamakoti.org, there is a full chapter on this question affirming that varna/jati is based strictly on birth. This is a core value of the Vedic religion that we call Hinduism today.
If you look at scientific evidence gleaned from archeology, DNA, etc. it is clear that there is no pure varna, everything is mixed up. As you say, there have been movements across the varna lines. But that is science. Religious doctrine requires birth based Varna purity and an elaborate scheme of punishments are stipulated for transgressors. Further, the present day keepers of Brahmin orthodoxy still maintain they can trace their pure genealogy back to the vedic rishees. What this shows, I leave it to you.
Should Hindu converts have to change their names to enter God's temples? No, I do not believe this should be a requirement. But it would be illogical to judge Hinduism on the basis of how a few Hindus behave.
It is not few Hindus. The gatekeepers refuse to permit non-hindus not because they are bigoted people, perhaps they are, perhaps they are not. They do so because that is the official policy of the temple. Small temples do not bother because they welcome any little income that may come their way. But the official polic is not to let non-hindus in. Until just a few decades ago dalits were kept out by Hindu darma. Even today there are upper caste hindus who go to extreme lengths to keep dalits away, let alone non-hindus. These are dalits who want to remain Hindu. Then, when they convert to Christianity or Islam, there is huge big hue and cry.
Forgive me, I think you may have misunderstood my intent.
This shows your graceful character. Not you my friend, it is I who should beg for forgiveness. I reread your post and it is clear to me I over-reached, sorry.
What you have said fits perfectly with the Hindu idea of dharma, and with Sri Krishna's teaching that it's better for a person to do his own duty poorly than to do another person's duty. I feel no need to convert a person of another religion, because I feel that he can reach God within his own religion.
But, Sri Krishna was talking about duties of Varnas. If you are kshatriya, then it is better to do kshatriya darma even poorly than brahmana darma perfectly. This is the source for some to think a toilet cleaner must remain a toilet cleaner, because that is his darma. Further, his children also must remain toilet cleaners. The punishment for not following your own darma is hell and a degraded or polluted rebirth. Sorry, this Hindu darma is no more attractive to me than the darma of other religions, particularly Abrahamic religions that I find completely devoid of logic.
Having said all of this, it is interesting to know that you are born into a Hindu family. Do you not consider yourself Hindu as well? I do not believe that such an identification is dependent on your religious beliefs at all.
I think “Hindu” is primarily a religious identity, and that is why I shun it. I love the benign parts of our culture like, food, music, poetry, history, study of religious traditions and on and on. In fact, I am teaching a theistic friend of mine to recite parts of Dhivya Praghandam of Azhavrs.
Dear sanjaya, it is lovely to exchange views with you, hope to continue…
Bookmarks