Now, I have to justify my claims that Krishna, Shankara, Buddha and Mahavira were all atheists! Before I give my polemics, lets see some definitions. If we are on different wavelengths, I think it'll be more difficult for me to get through. Contents inside square brackets indicate my position.
God - Ah! [For the moment, lets just say, whatever be your definition of God, I'm claiming that 'God' doesn't exist or that I don't accept your definition!]
Atheism - Some claim its the lack of belief in God. That sounds more like Agnosticism to me. I don't believe in God, because I know God doesn't exist. Atheism is not rejecting or being indifferent to religion. Thats secularism. [I'm Atheist, not secular. i.e. I'm a Hindu who just thinks there is no such thing as God. Ofcourse I like all religions.]
Agnosticism - a state where a person thinks he/she doesn't know enough to decide either way. [I'm not agnostic. I have made the leap of faith on the 'wrong' side!]
Creationism - God created this universe, humans etc. "Yahweh created earth 6000 years ago as a 4 billion year old planet". "Brahmins came from Vishnu's head". [I think creationism is bull-crap.]
Intelligent Design - There is a method to the madness! The universe, life etc are so complex yet in symphony that, there must be some intelligent design behind it. How can things be so organized if it all happened by chance? [I reject ID. I have no problem in accepting that everything I perceive (or not!) happened to be there just by chance. As a CS major, I know there is no such thing as a random number. But I still reject ID.]
Chasing Miracles - A state where a person 'wants to believe'. He/she is not satisfied with what he/she can perceive. He/she feels some saints have reached spiritual states that are desirable. In that state, he/she can perceive 'God'. [I think these people are gonna be disappointed!]
Paramatma - Universal Being. An omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, transcendental entity that may influence our life. Some may call this influence as Determinism. Lets not use the word Brahman here, because I think the Upanishads and Shankara use it differently. I think Allah, Yahweh and Paramatma are synonymous. [I reject Paramatma. If someone convinces me that this Paramatma exists, I'm no longer atheist.]
Ishwara - Personal God. An entity which people worship as the manifestation of the Paramatma. In Shankara parlance, its the 'God' at the pragmatic level. People get a 'spiritual high' while worshiping Ishwara. This Ishwara is where theology ends. Beyond that its philosophy. [I have worshiped Personal Gods in the past. I may in the future. But I know I'm just indulging myself. "God, make this happen" is just the same as "I wish this happens".]
Spiritual High - Its a state of the mind like fear, depression, happiness etc. People get a high from their faith just like they might get from music, alcohol, drugs, sex etc. Religion has recognized this as Soma, Lingam (Phallus) etc.
Reality - Everything we perceive or not perceive. Creation (kriya, aakkam) is the process that brought everything into existence and that will tranform or destroy everything. This process never stops (or it may because of Para-Global Warming!). Shankara called this process a flow. This flow originates and ends in Brahman. Brahman itself is defined as something which exceeds not just the 'mere finite' but the 'infinite' as well. Bhagwad Gita talks about life cycles, everything starts and ends in Krishna. [I accept Reality. I'm part of it. I accept Brahman with a rider that Shankara himself taught us.]
Maya - Claim that what we perceive as material reality is just an illusion created by our ignorance. When we realize this Maya, we are in a state of peace/bliss where we can perceive everything for what they are. [I reject Maya. I think the distinction between what we perceive and not perceive is unwarranted. I believe Buddha or Mahavira when he says he went to a different spiritual state. But why should I waste my time/effort to reach that state, when I can just learn from them?]
More on my next post!
12 comments:
"I think creationism is bull-crap."
Well, you just think. I am pretty sure that calling yourself an aethist and a Hindu at the same time is the filthiest BULL's SHIT I have ever known. A Hindu is one who believes and follows Hinduism (all of it, not just what he likes; which by the way is a religion that believes in GOD and is not a CLUB), period. World would better agree if you call yourself a Tamil (LTTE or not) and an aethist.
Reply to previous post::
Following ALL of a religion is certainly going to be difficult, if not downright confusing. Especially, when there is a flood of conflicting beliefs and customs. A person should be free to follow what is accessible to him or attainable by him. Otherwise, what you call a religion would be more akin to a cult.
Balaji,
When I used the word "criticism" in my commment on your prev post, it was with reference, in great measure, to your "tone". Sarcasm ("stupid people", etc) do not constitute a well thought-out post.
I see here that you claim that you are not an agnostic, and have "leaped" into atheism. To "decide", you must have information/facts that support/catalyse the decision. I do not see you presenting any such thing, nor can I discern any useful proposition from the array of words that you have transcribed.
In fact, your position on God will not hold water anywhere expect on your blog. You disclaim the existence of an object, whatever its definition may be!
This is a pugnacious argument and school-boyishly immature. If this is how you argue, little wonder, then, that Vijay "accepted" your "atheism"!
>> Sarcasm ("stupid people", etc) do not constitute a well thought-out post.
Sarcasm is intentional. This is my blog. Not my wikipedia article. Pandavas-Gauravas do seem like stupid people to me. I had also given reasons why I think they were stupid.
>> I see here that you claim that you are not an agnostic, and have "leaped" into atheism. To "decide", you must have information/facts that support/catalyse the decision.
So you decide a person's intellectual and philosophical acumen based on his blog? In anycase that "decision" was mine to make. I had all the time in the world and enough knowledge (I think) to make the leap.
>> I do not see you presenting any such thing, nor can I discern any useful proposition from the array of words that you have transcribed.
I only gave some definitions. My positions on them are just a clarification. When I'll be explaining why I see Krishna and Shankara as atheists, I'll need these definitions.
>> In fact, your position on God will not hold water anywhere expect on your blog. You disclaim the existence of an object, whatever its definition may be!
This is an interesting problem. How do you prove something which doesn't exist? Lot of people have their own definitions for God. So I proposed if anyone can give me a definition, I'll tell him/her whether I accept that definition and if I do, why I claim that 'God' doesn't exist.
For example, if someone says Love is God, then I would like to know why should I not call it just Love? But if the question was about say Paramatma, I will argue why Paramatma doesn't exist.
I think I'll be writing one or two more posts in this series to explain my atheism a little more and then to claim Krishna/Shankara as atheists.
>> This is a pugnacious argument and school-boyishly immature. If this is how you argue, little wonder, then, that Vijay "accepted" your "atheism"!
Well, my discussions with Vijay are evidently at a higher intellectual level than what I can manage in a blog. And btw he didn't accept atheism. We could just see what he calls as God and why I don't think that 'God' exists.
>>This is a pugnacious argument and school-boyishly immature. If this is how you argue, little wonder, then, that Vijay "accepted" your "atheism"!
dei!! cycle gapla kada vetra!
"For example, if someone says Love is God, then I would like to know why should I not call it just Love? But if the question was about say Paramatma, I will argue why Paramatma doesn't exist.
"
->> The above is, borrowing your own expression, 'bull-crap'.
Do whatever you want, my friend. Anyway, there are enough anonymous visitors to your blog whose comments should keep you on your toes.
"So you decide a person's intellectual and philosophical acumen based on his blog?"
->> I only know you through the words you use. I only see sarcasm, vehemence and bullishness; these are not the qualities of an "intellectual" person.
"For example, if someone says Love is God, then I would like to know why should I not call it just Love? But if the question was about say Paramatma, I will argue why Paramatma doesn't exist."
>> The above is, borrowing your own expression, 'bull-crap'.
why?
Shakuni
Please explain "The above is, borrowing your own expression, 'bull-crap'"in detail as this Guy is mentally challenged. You should have known this from his posts.
Guys,
I'm surprised to see that ALMOST all of the blog posts of this author are clearly explained in the following URL:
Reference
Thought for the day:
EMPTY VESSELS MAKE MORE NOISE
do you know the meaning of balaji ganesan ?
you should change it first to enforce your views or become a person who doesnt believe in himself as per your views!
'balaji' and 'ganesan' are both personal gods. people can worship them bindaas. but that doesn't mean they exist. This discussion is not about personal Gods. Its about what feature/mystery people want to worship in the form of personal gods.
and yeah, I know the meaning of my names. thank you!
Funny, even an Armenian girl knew that. Bala-Jan means little kids in Armenian!
Post a Comment