Hinduism

» pink101 - The Poll

.
Funny thing about the polls is that they don't leave room for "other" on which a discussion could ensue.
.
Your poll on religion's purpose didn't offer the option. How about, "Religion's purpose is to provide a mechanism of social control over the masses"?
.
I'll bet that would get some votes.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Harsh Nevatia - The Poll

In response to The Poll posted by pink101:
preset computer driven formats will have some shortcomings. i could have put one option as "others" but there is no way that voters who chose this option could provide their specific reason.

thanks for voting.

Permalink Print Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» kriyakid - The Poll

In response to The Poll posted by hkyyin:
I have thought a great deal about the purpose of religion, not only when I was in Religious Studies at the university, but even more in the quarter century since then. I preface my statement this way in the hope that it won't be taken too lightly.

The first purpose of religion is to prevent cubicals. Since multiple choice is probably a form of multiple cubical one could also say that the first purpose of religion includes preventing multiple choice.

First, it is really not fair to take the various functions of religion and try to isolate the most important. (However, if its stimulates thought and discussion it is very good.) But if it must be done, the most important is the prevention of cubicals. Of course this could be stated in reverse as the promotion of integration. Explaining mysteries, awareness of God, moral instruction, preparation for afterwards, spiritual well-being and peace of mind are all related to religion, but none is its heart and soul.

Its essence is what makes it eternal. But how can you know the essence so soon or easy, without hardly an inkling of its periphery? And before we can get to the periphery we need to discuss what religion is not.

You wrote a brief introduction to the Vedas, but you wrote in the dry manner of a scholar describing the taste of coconut water who had never, after working in the hot sun, been blessed by the goddess kalpa vriksha (coconut), and experienced drinking the water of a freshly opened young fruit of kalpa vriksha. The Vedas are not a corpus of literature written by poets, priests, and philosophers as you suggest. The Vedas are shruti, that which is heard.

Knowledge is structured in consciousness. Ganga is no mere river. She is the stream of consciousness which, but for Shiva's grace, would sweep away the objective world. Ganesha is Pranava, the seed mantra from which all other mantras come. The vedas are these mantras of Pranava. They structure knowledge in consciousness and they also have the magical effect of allowing or creating an objectified form of that knowledge so it can be experienced empirically, or in other words, subjectively.

As a side note: Modern science, which is now worshiped so universally, is really nothing but empirical knowledge. What is empirical knowledge? The illusion of subjectivity is created from the five kleshas. From this illusion we experience the child of the illusion, An object is that which is experienced by a subject. All objective knowledge is therefore subjective. It is only through dishonesty or blindness that we call it objective(objective here meaning knowledge not tainted by subjective bias). There can be no object without first there being a subject. A subject is made up of ignorance, ego ( or identification with the non-self as the Self), attachment, repulsion and clinging. This ignorance, ego, attachment, repulsion and clinging make possible the experience of objects, the non-self or non-subject. All empirical knowledge, including science, is then based on this subjectivity, or experiences of the subject. All science is therefore based on ignorance, false identification, attachment, repulsion and clinging.

So to try to take the viewpoint of science or scientists is not necessarily the best approach. Religion is that which is based in hearing, shruti, as opposed to what is based on subjectivity. So religion is not an empirical system, a system based on gathering information from the five senses. That is the domain of science. Science as such can never explain mysteries or give understanding of the universe. The realm of science is limited to the products of a certain illusion, the illusion of the subject. This illusion of the subject, as explained already, makes possible the realm of science, the empirical world.

So the essence of religion is not:
1. To explain the mysteries of the universe. Explanations or of the mind. The mind is limited and limiting. It cannot give us Truth.
2. To make one aware of the magnificence of God. Will knowing the magnificence of God make the mind tranquil, the ego powerless, and ignorance transparent? Cultures war against cultures in the name of the magnificence of God. God is magnificent. But without realization of the oneness of man and man and of man and God true religion cannot live.
3. To provide moral instruction. Moral instruction, if successful, may help us restrain the ego. But as long as we still put our eggs in the basket of the ego the seed of morality will be choked by weeds and not bear its fruit of peace, contentment and oneness.
4. Preparation for the afterlife. Regrets over the past and desires and fears about the future is what keeps us always in the mind. Contentment means to be at peace with the now.
5. To enable one to achieve spiritual well-being. This makes religion self-centered. Religion is about the oneness of mankind. It is the ego that is concerned with achievement. We want to achieve spiritual well-being to bolster our ego. The spirit is already well. Being is full, complete and perfect.
6. To achieve peace of mind. The mind is only one instrument. Its peace is an important first step. Dharma is action rooted in the oneness of all life and the oneness of God and man

The oneness of life and the non-material nature of the life and the universe is thus the foundation of religion. Its primary purpose is twofold: to create a social order based on ahimsa that allows every individual regardless of where they are spiritually, physically and socially, to develop or evolve toward that Oneness; and the means, tradition and paradigm for each individual to be able to follow the path of Truth, of Dharma.

Moral instruction alone cannot create a social order based on ahimsa. Ahimsa is the practice that arises from recognition, understanding or experience of the oneness of life. It simply means respect for each person, creature and thing (force) as an incarnation of God, which results in a behavior of non-violence in thought, word and deed. But this cannot arise if there is a belief that happiness or fulfillment comes from consumption, from getting, owning and enjoying material things such as power, pleasure and position..

In Sanatana Dharma (which is formalized and thus limited as Hinduism) this is provided for by such things as the practice of Namaskar, bowing to the God in others, mythologies that take us beyond the mind; and pujas, yajnas and other sacrifices that purify the mind and heart . These help create an internal and social paradigm that allows for growth toward oneness, that fosters Dharma.

I think the essence of religion is Satsanga, fellowship with the wise, those established in Sat, Truth.

-- posted by kriyakid

Permalink Print Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brenda Lane - The Poll

In response to The Poll posted by kriyakid:

That is not a response - that is an article! Interesting thoughts.

I echo some of what was said about the "other" category. For me, the purpose of religion is the pursuit of a deep, personal and growing relationship with my God and to deepen my knowledge and understanding of him.

To me it is not a religion at all by a relationship.

Permalink Print Discussion How to subscribe to feeds