Asking an Indian whether he believes in God seems to be an unnecessary question considering the deep rooted religious and spiritual outlook that the society here is accustomed to. And you could be pardoned to dismiss Atheism in India as “Im the smartass” conversations among a few disillusioned youth outside the intimidating presence of hundreds of temples, churches and mosques. Though its acceptance is debatable, of the several thousand ideologies that evolved in the Indian society, Atheism should be the most unlikely that you would figure to be 1800 years old
It was in the year 600 BC (or 600 BCE to be politically correct) that the first atheist school of thought, Lokyāta (or Carvaka) came into existence. Brihaspati, an ancient philosopher founded and preached the Lokayata thought and is considered the father of Atheist movement in India. His views were anything but conservative even in the current context.
“As long as you live, live happily, take a loan and drink ghee. After a body is reduced to ashes where will it come back from?”
It spoke of a self-centred hedonistic approach to Atheism which never quelled the element of fear, the foundation of religion as per philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell.
Very little is documented about Lokyāta and its demise in 1400 AD though it doesn’t come as a surprise considering the fate of several scientists and thinkers in the West who faced torture and persecution from religious bodies like the Catholic Church because of their refusal to acknowledge the existence of God.
Hinduism’s tryst with Atheism is rather intriguing when you take into account ‘Nastika’, a school of thought that advocated the rejection of belief in the Vedas(Astika) but later came to be associated with atheism itself. Though several schools of thought like the Nyay Sutras, Samkhya and Vaisheshika evolved with varying degrees of dependence on logical, scientific and sometimes spiritual methodologies, almost all of them failed to acknowledge the importance of social contribution and address the real world problems in the Indian society.
Goparaju Ramachandra Rao (aka Gora) vowed to change that when he started the Atheist Centre in 1940 and established a headquarters in Vijayawada on the eve of India’s independence in 1947. Combining humanism and his passion for enabling social change, Gora along with his wife worked tirelessly towards uplifting the poor and the lower caste. His atheism was positive, not an instrument of exhibiting intellectual superiority over conservationists in cocktail parties. He did share a good rapport with Mahatma Gandhi though when he was conferred with the G D Birla International Award for Humanism, The Hindu called him ‘a Gandhian and freedom fighter’ while his association with atheism was more or less ignored. Maybe an atheist contributing to the society in India is still unthinkable.
Meanwhile, Gora’s Atheist Centre silently continues to promote of atheism, humanism and social change.
February 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm
In fact, besides Carvaka/Lokyata’s presence in Hindu Literature, (like the sage Javali in Ramayana), Vedantism itself goes beyond the Bhakti God, similar to that of the Revealed Religions, and is more in the form of the atheistic self-god idea of philosophy and some science.
February 20, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I was unaware.
In the absence of any challenges to the order of concepts acquired through nurture, then it surely must be impossible to question the “norm”. No one willingly by predetermined thought wants to be ostracised. We all want to loved and accepted and are therefore willing to sacrifice free and radical thinking.
Would you agree?
February 20, 2007 at 2:56 pm
More or less yes, Id agree. Another factor would be the ideology itself which has characteristics that will not conform to that of an organization and therefore the individual is happy to hold them within himself.
February 20, 2007 at 6:55 pm
[...] atheism that is. It was in the year 600 BC (or 600 BCE to be politically correct) that the first atheist school [...]
February 21, 2007 at 5:18 am
Yes, Atheism was part of the Indian society since quite some time. It was not just the case with Hindu Kings. Akbar called Carvakas to his court, when he assembled a philosophers meetup. Carvakas also played a small role in creating an awakening against widespread male chauvinism present in the society then.
February 21, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Hinduism accepts what we call atheists into its fold. One has to search for God within oneself…
February 21, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Nita,
Atheism rejects the idea of a superior power or God. So I doubt whether your reference could hold true.
February 21, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Isn’t Buddhism atheist?
February 21, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I have read this in several places. very few people actually understand Hinduism (including me I guess) but I’ll try to explain it. Ofcourse the philosophy is not that there is no God (which is the true meaning of atheism) but something that says that the God is not external, but internal.
February 21, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Hinduism as a word might be too broad to define considering its intrinsic contradictions. But on the current context of spirituality and the essence of Vedas associated with Hinduism, it contradicts what Atheism stands for.
Atheism is a positive rejection of deities which Hinduism is strongly associated with.
February 21, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I could find this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism
What it says basically that there is a certain school in Hinduism (not mainstream Hindusim mind you) that does not accept the creator or God.
I always knew this about Hindusim:
1) you can be an atheist and no one excommunicates or rejects you. Amartya Sen is one.
2) that God is to be found within oneself.
I should do more of a study really before I can talk on this subject. I am not at all an authority.
February 21, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Nita,
I think you are talking in terms of Hinduism as a culture and way of life – not as a religion.
Belief in deities and worship is the main characteristics of Hinduism as a religion and how it evolved. Atheism wouldn’t fit in.
February 21, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Thanks for this very interesting post, Woke.
February 21, 2007 at 11:28 pm
You might want to read up on the Dravidian movement — especially the Dravidar Kazahgam. E.V.Ramaswany (aka Periyar) championed the Rationalist movement. All the Dravidian parties are off-shoots of the DK. Both Annadurai (former CM) and M.Karunanidhi of the DMK were/are professed atheists.
It used to be quite common to see “There is no God” scribbled on walls in the rural areas of TN.
February 22, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Carvaka philosophy followed the same line of deductions like other Indian philosophies to explain the world, its creation and the presence of consciousness.It followed Nyaya Vaisheshika model of universe made of atoms (anu)that combined and recombined to form the material universe and each atom contained a small bit of the original conscuious priciple that was the cause of creation of the universe. These atoms were five in number – kshiti, ap, tej. marut byom. or earth, water, light or energy, wind and space(void). Carvaka denied the Byom and accepted only four other elements and propounded that atoms by combination produced compounds or complexities and consciousness was a property of complexity and not contained in the atoms. This was world’s first complexity theory as was the Atomic theory of Kanad long long before Democritus, the Greek. It went into oblivion because it could not explain many of the phenomena of the world, not the least of which was the void among atoms and molecules and our appreciation of the void (phank) in our music that gave it the quality.
February 22, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I went to a lecture two evenings ago run by café scientifique and the speaker was Professor Bruce Hood, University of Bristol, Experimental Psychology.
http://www.bris.ac.uk/bcdc/
If it is of interest you can follow his argument in the article Times online Sep 4 2006 by Mark Henderson, Science Editor of The Times;
Human brain naturally inclined towards the supernatural
First paragraph runs: “The human brain is hard-wired to be susceptible to supernatural beliefs as a result of tens of thousands of years of evolution, a British psychologist said today.
Religion and other forms of magical thinking continue to thrive, in spite of a lack of evidence and the advance of science, because people are naturally biased to accept a role for the irrational in their daily lives, according to Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol……..”
You guys appear to have a lot more facts about this subject. I mistakenly held the impression that India houses every religion known to mankind.
So how come India has become linked to all things spiritual? Or is spiritaulity completely different from God as a divine being.
February 23, 2007 at 9:03 pm
hey woke, are you aware that a person named ennis has posted a copy of this post today on sepia mutiny…sans credit ofcourse.
well, if not a “ditto” copy, a heavily inspired write up, in the least.
February 24, 2007 at 12:14 am
Anuj,
Thanks for the compliment, but I didnt see many similarities with ennis’ post in sepiamutiny. Can you point out the context?
KR,
interesting stuff about the writing on the wall in TN.
justlearningman,
India does house house all religions known to mankind – and other ideologies contradicting religion and spirituality.
Spirituality does not necessarily mean belief in god, but is receptive to experiences beyond your sensory perceptions.
jajnavalkya – thanks for the additional info as well.
February 24, 2007 at 1:37 am
Woke, Ennis’s post is on Atheists in India.
Were I a betting man, I would venture she/he read your post and had a eureka moment.
Anyways, as i said in my # 17 remark –
“if not a “ditto” copy [of your post], a heavily inspired write up, in the least.”
p.s don’t mean to make a big deal out of it..just caught my eye.
February 25, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Surely anuj the more chatter on the same subject the better isn’t it? Pretty confident that woke know’s how to claim his own blog.
Continuing my thread: has there been any study on sensory atrophy.
kind of “don’t use it, you lose it” thinking.
March 17, 2007 at 10:24 am
Thanks for such a nice write-up. Being a atheist in India has its own challenges especially when you have parents who came form a very strict and conservative background or born in a village and part of a caste system called brahmanas. This is not a place to detail the difficulties of an atheist but it is these difficulties that inspires the wrong views of public and media. I would like to draw atention to this url http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/
May 1, 2007 at 11:40 pm
That was a very nice read. I wish I had read it at least 2 months earlier, when perhaps the discussion was still hot in your head. But still I hope you have the patience to hear me through.
“I think you are talking in terms of Hinduism as a culture and way of life – not as a religion.
Belief in deities and worship is the main characteristics of Hinduism as a religion and how it evolved. Atheism wouldn’t fit in.”
Hinduism is a originally called Sanathana dharma or ever present way of life. This dharma is a group of philosophies that was propounded by the then philosophers or as we call them Rishies.. These were then interpreted by various saints, and preachers who argued about it to suit their views, thus converting it into religious views that are popular today.
At the time philosophys where formed they were basically of 3 schools or thought
Vedanta- (end of vedas) which wasTheism, Sankhya (numbers) which was to some extent materialistic, but believed in the (Purusha tatva) which could be argued to be the soul or god and the Lokayata (or that of the common man) which was Purely atheims. Each argued about the creation with a point of view.
The Vedic school argued that all human beings have souls (Atman). It was propounded by Vyasa . It was the most popular philosophy used by many saints, like Adhi Shankara , Madhvachari and others, who used it as a basis to form the Dwita, and Addwita schools. Thus was born the basis of religion of present day India, Which is a part of Hinduism. But not necessarily the essence of Hinduism.
The Sankya philosophy was not used in religious views and hence did not become popular. In my opinion though it was perhaps the basis of scientific development in India, which the growth of Ayurveda, mathematics and Astronomy.
The Lokayata philosophy how ever gained momentum and popularity when Vedantic ideals got abused by the priest class to suppress the less fortunate classes, during the time when Buddhism gained prominence. The essence of Lokayata philosophy has been lost over time, perhaps due to the over zealousness of religious intervention into philosophy. But here and there bits and pieces have emerged mostly though people who have quoted it , to argue against it. It preached realism. Were it denied the existence of Atma or Parmathma. Men had but only this one life, they had to live it to the fullest.
I have tried to explain as simplistically as possible, and have left out may points in these philosophies that are interesting and important in understanding them. My aim was to point out that Sanathan dharma is not are religion, but gave rise to the present religion. Come another saint, who would make an intellectual argument as well as appeal to the masses about another philosophy of Hinduism, perhaps we would have another religion, but we would still be called people of the the Sanathana dharma.
May 2, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Minkz
could you explain a bit more, the etymology of Sanathana dharma.
Woke. Could this topic be reposted?
May 4, 2007 at 12:18 am
I am not an authority in this subject, but merely feint interest. But if you would still like to know what I have read and concurred from all the reading is this.
Sanathana is derived from the Sanskrit language, the word meaning- eternal, or for ever. And Dharma could mean code of life, but each author interprets dharma a little differently. Dharma how ever the interpretations may be, does not mean religion. While Religion binds you to follow a path, Dharma mearly acts like a guide line. It perhaps started by the mixture of two cultures that lived in the Sindhu river basin.
May 4, 2007 at 2:13 am
Thanks Minkz
Just found out how to change my name for public dislay. still justlearningman and WG is real name.
I appreciated what you have to say.
May 6, 2007 at 12:10 am
“In the absence of any challenges to the order of concepts acquired through nurture, then it surely must be impossible to question the “norm”. No one willingly by predetermined thought wants to be ostracised. We all want to loved and accepted and are therefore willing to sacrifice free and radical thinking.”
“Human brain naturally inclined towards the supernatural
First paragraph runs: “The human brain is hard-wired to be susceptible to supernatural beliefs as a result of tens of thousands of years of evolution, a British psychologist said today.
Religion and other forms of magical thinking continue to thrive, in spite of a lack of evidence and the advance of science, because people are naturally biased to accept a role for the irrational in their daily lives, according to Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol……..”
Hi WG
Just out of curiosity, By putting these two thoughts together, would you be trying to argue with your self?
On one hand a child of 2 Athestic parents might find it difficult to believe in god, while on the other his human brain would make him a believer?
I did find the lecture interesting, and have heard it put forth in a different view, The professor who put forth this view visited our school and was lecturing on art appriciation. He felt that the human brain was programmed to be creative, and argued that that differenciated us from animals.
May 6, 2007 at 3:46 am
Minkz
That is an interesting dilemma. Nature Vs Nurture. “On one hand a child of 2 Athestic parents (understand you mean athiestic) might find it difficult to believe in god, while on the other his human brain would make him a believer?
”
What is your opinion?
Biblical scholars say that God has put it in our hearts to seek afyter him.
May 6, 2007 at 3:47 am
By the way Minkz why are we the only two talking about this?
May 7, 2007 at 9:34 am
Very interesting Wired article.
Thanks for keeping the discussion alive minkz and Winslie.
There is no way of proving that “God has put it in our hearts to seek after him.”
Suppose an individual is born and brought up in place without any external influence of societies, logically I wouldn’t see a possibility of finding her/him praying to the ‘Supreme Power’ one day. On the other hand I wouldnt be surprised if the person starts worshipping the Sea or the Sun. But then that is fear – not worship. For the human mind to think of the next step of possibility of an unseen power, that may not be enough.
May 8, 2007 at 12:41 am
Hi WG
Some how, I don’t accept that a person can’t overcome all concepts acquired thro’ upbringing. But there is truth in the fact that our beliefs are based on our need for love and acceptance.
Not every one will pursue all source of knowledge of the same subject. But would accept, a generally accepted belief on the subject on religion, while they pursue their own interest with more intensity. So an average person would believe god exists and find peace in that, if the environment that nurtured him believed so, or the social circle he was around believed so, while be pursued his own interest. In that point I would accept your argument. But more often than not a child growing up starts with beliefs his parents set for him, while his continuing beliefs are based on his social circle. If he has mixed among people who have questioned his belief, and have given him a wider knowledge on the subject, there is a high chance that this would either strengthen his belief or change it.
I can take a bet that the average person however, has not given more than a glance at the various discussions of theism or atheism, so as not to ‘rock his boat” of peace.
As for your second question, I believe Woke has spoken.
May 8, 2007 at 1:05 am
Hi woke
I might be terrible wrong, but I have found that more often than not worship has its grounds in fear. Belief might start valorously, but continues mostly with desire and fear.
May 8, 2007 at 9:51 am
“..but I have found that more often than not worship has its grounds in fear.”
Exactly my point too.
May 8, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Thanks Minkz
a person can’t overcome all concepts acquired thro’ upbringing.
Quite agree; so when does the process of questioning or seeking after “truth” begin. Does it begin at the point of a calamity, tragedy or stress and in the absensence of any threats life goes on the conveyor belt of conformity?
May 8, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Hi Woke,
Why fear?
May 8, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Minkz, Woke.
A brief background might help.
I am ex Missionary Bible College trained so all my references are from the christian context. I have now rejected all religion. I suppose the dissatisfaction began in my third year when I started to study Islam.
Without attempting self publicity, i wrote an article titled “Faith Pimp” where I agrued against the reliance on texts.
http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/05/03/faith-pimp/
Having said that, Bible quote: “Perfect love casts out fear”
(there are many more, as a rule I dislike quotes to be used as a rapier)
May 8, 2007 at 1:47 pm
If you don’t trust your heart to lead you to the next minute, the next hour, the next day but in an unknown power that a million people has been telling you about, I think ‘fear’ is the only logical explanation that I can come up with, though some people like to call it self-discovery.
Bertrand Russell has something interesting to say.. http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
May 8, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Woke
In the absence of any other solid reasoning I have had to rely on intuition or gut feeling to lead me forward.
But fear of what exactly.
If we accept Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs then we are seeking self discovery.
May 8, 2007 at 5:46 pm
“Maslow’s hierarchy of need”
That was an amazing read, I have not read it before, but I get it. In a way I find that it answers the question you asked me. It is not always tragedy and stress that makes one change direction. In fact I don’t think that will truly make a person think of his beliefs without prejudice. In fact such a person is often bitterly theistic, denying it because he hoped for a fantastic that did not happen.
But for becoming a free thinker perhaps one has to cross the ‘pyramid of need’ as Maslow put it.
May 8, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Woke
Thanks for the ref to Bertrand Russell. It’s always good to be reminded.
Funny how I echo his thoughts in much the same way and would go on to add that over reliance on any one particuliar line of religious thought on it’s own is sublimely dangerous.
We need to be prepared to be challenged so that through that dialogue we gain understanding.
You thoughts please?
May 8, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Minkz.
In lay terms we would describe it (self realisation) as being confident within oneself, I suppose!
May 8, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Hi
I really found Bertrand Russell’s essay interesting, but I would not totally agree with him at many points. He argues that the concept of god is unworthy of a free thinker. I don’t agree with him there. Indeed a free thinker can think of god, and all concepts of it. He could even believe in the concept of god when he has deeply analyzed this concept and come to the conclusion, based on his research alone and not prejudice. Just as he could think otherwise, based on the same reasons.
The other thing he mentions is science can give answers. I have noticed many atheists also basing their beliefs on science. In my opinion science too is half a knowledge. We learn something new every day. What we knew 50 years back, is very different from what we know today and will in all probability change tomorrow. It is the metaphorical equivalent of stepping in a river with a strong current, with the correct balance, we might flow with it. But if we try to keep our feet firm, there is a chance of falling flat. What I am getting at is, Darwins theory, or the theory of the big bang, are theories, just as Copurnicus and Aristotle, once had theories. (forgive my spelling). Science is ever learning. A person should keep that in mind while he researches his belief.
May 8, 2007 at 9:00 pm
We need to be prepared to be challenged so that through that dialogue we gain understanding.
That is very true, not only in terms of relegion, but every other ascept, for a thinking man.
May 8, 2007 at 11:01 pm
“I have noticed many atheists also basing their beliefs on science.”
THe main point is that Science changes with empirical facts. Religion does not. So an atheist can change his belief pretty easily if he is devoted to Science. A religious person will not stop believing in his doctrine if it is proven wrong.
May 8, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Hi Avi
I do get your point.
THe main point is that Science changes with empirical facts. Religion does not. So an atheist can change his belief pretty easily if he is devoted to Science. A religious person will not stop believing in his doctrine if it is proven wrong.
I have heard a theist argue that religion changes with time too.Just like for science, the finding of the truth is the anchor, around with all theories revolve and change, they argue that god is the anchor around with religion and its doctrins have changed over a period of time.In this argument I dont not include hard core religious fanatics,but an averabe believer who will insists that he believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution and in God.
May 8, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Hi minksz,
Religion does change with time, especially on issues like evolution, etc. What I meant to say is that if science disproves the central theory of a field, say on gravity (bear with me here), then scientists and atheists will, if the evidence is sound, discard the central theory on gravity. If reincarnation is discovered to be false and reincarnation is the central doctrine of a religion , religious followers of that religion would not stop believing in the doctrine or evade/deny/modify it.
But then you can argue, it is very hard to disprove a ‘central’ religious belief.
May 8, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Minksz,
Say someone proved definitely that there is no God, would religions modify or change to accomodate this belief?
Yes, I know, it is very hard to prove/disprove God, but humor me for a second.
May 9, 2007 at 12:26 am
It is widely accepted that everything changes i.e. evolves. (not trying to sell darwinism)
Religions do change/modify, but circumnavigate around the problematic issue, so that it appears different but is still the same.
If we see religion as a MEME and that thought or propoganda survives because it suits a particular purpose e.g. the caste system or apartheid; based on god given supremacy of whites.
May 9, 2007 at 4:08 am
Hi Avi
“If reincarnation is discovered to be false and reincarnation is the central doctrine of a religion , religious followers of that religion would not stop believing in the doctrine or evade/deny/modify it.”
Your argument would be the same the other way round, If Darwins theory of evolution, or the big bang had not been found out would some of them still be Atheists?
The answer both way round would be the same. Yes and I will substantiate my statement.
First of all Atheists existed before scientific theory that is common today existed, because their argument was based on the philosophy of how a man should live rather than god, or science. In the same way belief in God existed before theories of re-incarnation came into the picture. The various doctrines and rules were set about by people who manipulated this belief to suit their needs. For example, take Christianity or Islam for that matter, If we study history of civilizations we know that they are somewhat younger than other religions and beliefs, they just replaced the existing beliefs of those places.(sometimes after bloody wars)
“Say someone proved definitely that there is no God, would religions modify or change to accomodate this belief?”
The answer to that too is an yes. And the proof is the development of Buddhism. Perhaps Buddha and few other philosophers disapproved of where Hinduism and its priests were heading to, and decided change it. Buddhism at its best does not believe in god of any form (though it does believe in re incrination). But have you looked at Buddhists today? Have you been to Buddhagaya? Pilgrims come from Srilanka and other places just so as to pray there. There Buddha is worshipped as god. The very saying “Buddham Sharanam Gachami”, says it all. The aim of a true Buddhist is Nirvana, then why is not the favourit Buddhist mantra “Nirvanam Gacchami”? Why has” he to seek mercy at the feet of Buddha?”
The reason is peoples need for the fantastic or the supernatural.Just as WG pointed out ,
It perhaps gives them a peace of mind while they go about their daily lives, with all the bigger mystries of the world solved so easily.
May 9, 2007 at 4:11 am
My real aim of bringing Science into this discussion was to just say that science and religion are best when studied apart. Science should not be mixed with religious issues whether for or against.
May 9, 2007 at 10:51 am
minskz,
actually, the investigation of the ‘god’ gene and science’s investigation of the heritibility of religion are fascinating.
May 9, 2007 at 10:55 am
Being close to atheism (agnostic), let me assure you that if there was scientific proof that the universe is the result of intelligent design and there was a God, atheists and agnostics would not have trouble changing their affiliation. Of course, there might be some people like Dawkins who would be eternally angry at this outcome, but atheist and agnostics really do care about scientific proof and *are* flexible.
May 9, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Let me ask you some thing, if the research on the god gene and the investigation of heritability some how helped, prove that god existed, you said that all atheists and agnostic (and all other types of believers) would readily believe in god, So in that scenario will racism, cast system, and all the killing and torture in the name of religion that is going on- will it be acceptable? After all if he existed and did not raise a hand to save his children, it means he encouraged it.
Most of atheists and all the other kinds of non believers have taken their stand not because of god itself, but the moral implications and rules that religion has got around it. Their stands in this matter is because of the advantage religion has taken in the name of god over a common mans mind and spirit. There in the true spiritual quest is lost.
Science has conveniently answered many questions they would be otherwise without. In my opinion, however science should not replace religion. Instead science should be free to investigate on its own.
If a researcher based his investigation on his personal prejudice chances are it will reflect in his work, there by making it incomplete.(It could also provoke controversy causing more loud debate, threats to his life, making him very popular and rich, and may be he could start his own tv show ) What I am getting at is when a research is free of prejudice, there is more chance for true discovery.
May 9, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Minkz
Sound argument.
I think there has to be some dismantling of concepts before anyone is able to have a clearer understanding of any particular line of thought.
My primary motive is restoring the dignity of the individual.
May 9, 2007 at 9:10 pm
My primary motive is restoring the dignity of the individual
Very admirable, and a practical way to look at life.
May 10, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Hi all
I guess I am the reason for the aqward pause in this party. But I do thank you for this wonderful debate. As you may have guessed, I have no truck with religion either for or against. To me god is an abstract concept just like truth and beauty. It is good for a philosophic discussion, but not good when humanized or madly adhered to. My primary fascination is human mind that can conjure such wonderful abstract thoughts.
May 10, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Minkz
Thanks for keeping this topic alive and agreed the human mind is such a vast subject and we know so little about it.
Thanks to everyon else too, despite busy lives and time zones.
It has been a joy to be here.
May 11, 2007 at 8:53 am
Thanks everyone, especially minkz and WG for sharing your thoughts here. Mutiny has moved to a new location – http://www.mutiny.in and you can expect a lot of discussion on similar lines in the near future.
http://www.mutiny.in
August 30, 2007 at 4:45 pm
PianoDraft
Hello
I bookmarked this blog. Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website HOT Piano Links http://www.uprightpiano.xpcmusic.pl
April 19, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I think the free thinking and question every axiom
April 19, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Sorry, I accidentally hit the submit button. This is what I wanted to say.
I think the free thinking and question every axiom sprint of India, if there was one before, has died. Now, we have become a society that worships everything from anthills to automobiles! Rationality seems to have disappeared from our society. Anything goes in the names of rituals. I have read about religious rituals such as burying children live (even for a few minutes), dropping children from rooftops of temples in a a piece of cloth held by a few people and dipping children in hot oils, all in the name of religion.
We should truly appreciate people like Gora for their efforts keep rationality alive in India.
June 7, 2009 at 11:44 am
Can we use God and religion just in a linguistic terms, rather then just believing in that stuff?
I understand that the idea of God varies in Hinduism. According to my friend, God is just an energy, not a person or a super power. So is it OK to refer God as an Energy?
June 11, 2009 at 2:11 am
Atheist Singh,
I think that’d depend upon what attributes you associate with that energy. If you think the energy has ‘intention’, ‘intelligence’ and a ‘plan’ and ‘purpose’ for our Universe, then it’d be deism. And if one starts believing that by praying or performing certain rituals, this energy can be coaxed into altering its plans for us, then, it’s hardly different from any of the Gods that are anyway worshipped.
Hope this addresses what you were asking.
Take care.