I am an atheist only till the extent that I agree that the chance of any god existing is very little. I do not agree with the thought which many atheists believe that by merely being an atheist you have automatically become rational.-**But I dun like to call myself that I prefer the word Rational Thinker because ahtheism makes us part of the same cult phenomenum**). -I do believe, unlike a lot of atheists that Hinduism is a fantastic religion because it isnt institutionalized unlike the abrahamic religions. People could criticize me here by mentioning the different Hindu gurus that exist, but they do not exist because of Hinduism per say, they would exist in any case in society because people are always going to give opinions and you will have some who would like to follow them because they like their opinions. For example, I am on this website because I admire the work of Agnostics so I could well be a follower of the Agnostics Cult.-Hinduism has given a lot of rationalists like me the freedom to be what I am without any serious concerns. Infact I find rationalists have been more heard around Hindu Circles than the other religious circles because of the basic teachings of tolerance of thought in Hindu scriptures.( **I could be wrong on a small scale level because there are exceptions to every religious cult and every religious identity but my opinion obviously is from what I have seen or experienced in the form of reading/watching or living life in general** )-I also believe we r not ready for a godless society because our whole premise is that whole world should think rationally( The underlying assumption here is that if you believe in god you are thinking irrationally which is what a lot of atheists & rationalists believe). While I agree with all my fellow rationalists that the concept of a godless society is something intriguing( not necessarily appealing), I dont think that it is a realistic possibility. Some might argue that natural selection would probably develop the brain so much that it will eventually become highly rational and even I do believe and hope that it happens( But not at the cost of peoples faith in God & Religion). -While I hope it does become rational, I think the only way out till then is The Concept God along with religion because in a country like India where law and order is a thing on paper not in reality if we didn't have the concept of god we would be finished. A lot of credit has to be given to Hinduism for this balance, however bad, we perceive it to be in India right now. -My suggestion to this subject would be make a new version of all the religions(**especially the abrahamic variety**) something which Thomas Jefferson tried to when he submitted his version of the bible without the bullshit. Because irrationality is a genetic phenomenum according to me which isn't going to go overnite and I believe to get rid of something you have to go step by step. In this process you lay foundations for rational thinking which I hope would eventually lead to what we rationalists believe is a better world without religion and its biases.-I would appreciate new suggestions so that I improve my views on this subject.

SATYANSH: I am an atheist only till the extent that I agree that the chance of any god existing is very little. I do not agree with the thought which many atheists believe that by merely being an atheist you have automatically become rational.-First of all, welcome to the forum. This is the first time we've had a post from someone with, I presume, a Hindu background, and as I for one find it very difficult to understand what exactly Hinduism stands for, you will certainly be able to offer us new perspectives. From what I do know, there are so many different kinds of Hinduism that it can embrace virtually any faith or non-faith. You have mentioned "the basic teachings of tolerance of thought", and I see this as a huge advantage over the restrictions and prejudices of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.-What really intrigues me in your post, though, is the emphasis on rationalism, and I wonder to what extent you yourself think rationalism could eventually lead "to a better world without religion and its biases". I agree with you completely that being an atheist doesn't mean that a person is rational: on the contrary, atheism is based on the belief that all the mysteries of life and consciousness must be explicable in terms of the material world as we know it. That is not reason, but faith. Belief in some kind of conscious, supernatural being who created us and perhaps even cares for us is equally irrational. But I don't see reason as being a reliable guide to truth, since once we've satisfied our material needs, many of the experiences we tend to value most in life ... I'm thinking of love, sensual and aesthetic pleasures ... have nothing to do with reason, and can't be explained by it. What is rational about my love for my wife and children, or my pleasure at a Mahler symphony, a Hentschel painting, or a chocolate mousse?-You have suggested making a new version of all the religions, especially the Abrahamic variety. The latter are all rigidly bound by their texts, and therefore by the process of interpretation. The current split between the Anglicans over homosexuality and the ordination of women, the latest kerfuffle over the Pope's statements about condoms, and the terrible gulf between Muslim moderates and fundamentalists, all show that these religions will never agree amongst themselves, let alone with one another. -The question you have posed at the beginning of this post is whether the world can survive without religion. I think it could certainly survive without each of the individual religions, because none of them can claim any sort of authority. We don't need religion, in my view, for moral purposes, because society is perfectly capable of establishing moral laws and educating people to behave responsibly and considerately without the imposition of ethics from priests who are no more reliable than politicians. (Of course that doesn't mean that a humanistic society will stamp out evil. Religion can't do that either.) However, some people do need a power to look up to, worship, and also give them hope. The realities of life and death are too harsh for many to bear, so religion plays an essential and extremely valuable role that I think it will continue to play so long as the human world continues to suffer (which it will). So my answer to your question is that there are enough human beings who need religion for social and psychological reasons to ensure that it will survive. And for all we know, there may also be enough common truth in religion to justify its survival for cosmic reasons as well.

First of all I thank you for the reply and the welcome to the forum. -"atheism is based on the belief that all the mysteries of life and consciousness must be explicable in terms of the material world as we know it. That is not reason, but faith."-beautiful explanation I have to admit. -Now to the point of rationality. Well the very reason I feel that religion is needed is because the human specie is not ready for the Religionless/ Godless society for the very reasons you have mentioned in the end.-For me rationality plays a major role in your life because rationality defines most of the things that your life governs hence it is quite important. but at the same time i do know that emotions are kind of opposed to rationality.
But for me rationality is of prime importance because they form the basis of setting up morals.-Why I say religion is needed and not replace it which is the popular atheist suggestion is because religion just cannot go because of human needs and who is to say that the replaced set of ideas wont be corrupted. I dont mean to say that morals come out of religion but they are heavily influenced by religion because religion for me is nothing but a popular set of thoughts which are written down and transferred down to us over the years. hence to me they do affect morals and as thoughts can be changed or influenced, i beleive in reforms which have been sucessfully applied in the hindu society where stupid religious and non religious beleifs of our society were eradicated by reforms.-The hindu faith is very different from the abrahamic faiths simply because what hinduism is all about. It isn't institutionalized as that there isn't one set of thoughts that govern the whole religion. it is a conglomerate of different thoughts with open arms for new suggestions. I will be posting a brief explanation Hinduism from the web and you will really find it interesting as it one of the religions and that legally accepts atheism and agnosticism.-Hinduism is among the most curious of religions that exist on the planet Earth. It's over 3000 years old and still kicking. It's never waged a Holy War. Its followers are some of the most deeply religious in existence and yet there are no widespread debates about its teachings. There are supposedly thirty million gods and goddesses in its pantheon, and though they themselves have rarely gotten along, their followers seem to be doing just fine.-Hinduism is also the only religion in the world that considers atheism legitimate.-The Philosophical Roots of Atheism in Hinduism-There are nine major Hindu schools of philosophy. These are broadly divided into 'Astika' schools and 'Nastika' schools. While the terms 'Astika' and 'Nastika' are loosely translated to mean 'theist' and 'atheist', they technically refer to belief in the Vedas (four of the 'holy books' of Hinduism) rather than belief in God. The six schools which fall under the title 'Astika' believe in the teachings of the Vedas, even if they do not subscribe a Creator-God.-Of the 'Astika' schools, the Samkhya and Karma-Mimasa thinkers can be described as atheists. Samkaya believed in the material world (Prakriti) and the existence of the spirit (Purusha) but not in God. The Karma-Mimasa school believes strongly in natural Karmic law (that good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds punished) and has no need of an omnipotent being to enforce it.-The three Nastika schools ... Buddhism, Jainism and Carvaka ... reject the doctrine of the Vedas. However, they are not necessarily atheist. Buddhism is, perhaps, the only agnostic religion in existence. Jainism rejects the idea of an omnipotent manager, believing instead that the universe has always existed, will always exist and is governed by natural laws.-Carvaka is the most strongly atheist of the three schools. Also called the Lokayata, it is named after its founder, Carvaka. It seems to have originated somewhere around 300 BC and died out around the 1400s AD. The original works of this school have been lost and our knowledge of it is based upon criticism of Carvaka philosophy written by Hindu and Buddhist opponents.

First of all I thank you for the reply and the welcome to the forum. -
Let me welcome you also. My tour of India left my confused about Hinduism and all the Gods. I never got a good explanation, as you are providing. There is no question that yours is a reasonable approach to religion and life. The descriptions we received are best described as 'joyous'. I came away with Ganash as my favorite God. He is such fun, but all of that is superficial. You are giving us some meat to chew on. Thank you.

your welcome david. if you have any furthur questions on the matter do feel free to ask me.

your welcome david. if you have any furthur questions on the matter do feel free to ask me.-Do any of the gods in Hinduism have an authority to tell people how to live, what to do properly, how to live ethically? Diwali is so much fun, so many lights, does it have any deeper meaning? We were in Rathambore and saw tigers, and it was the time of Dewali, so I am curious. Any deep meaning?

well as far as my knowledge of Hinduism goes god is someone to be loved and worshiped and not a dictator or a instructor. see the diff between the abrahamic faiths and Hinduism is that Hindu books ( Vedas are considered to be the supreme authority ) were not written by god through a prophet. they were written by various Rishi's( which means priests ) in praise of all the good things provided by life. They were at times atributed to God but it was not that they were saying god tells you to do this or do that. Infact the Hindu concept of God is very different. For us everything is God. I will paste a small excerpt written by a Christian who has explanied hinduism in his way.-Hindu Beliefs About God And the World-An understanding of the Hindu beliefs about God is important even if we don't know any Hindus or people from India because we are all in contact with the New Age movement, and it draws its ideas about God from Hinduism. What then do Hindus believe about God?-The early portions of the Hindu scriptures known as the Vedas describe a number of deities who for the most part are personifications of natural phenomena, such as storms and fire. Prayers and sacrifices were offered to these gods. An extensive system of priestly rituals and sacrifices was eventually developed which served as means of obtaining the blessing of these gods.-The later portions of the Vedas, called the Upanishads, reflect a significant development in Hinduism's concept of the divine. Many of the Upanishads, instead of speaking of a multitude of gods, refer to an ultimate reality beyond our comprehension called Brahman. Though Brahman is impersonal in nature, it is sometimes referred to in personal terms by the name Isvara.-Along with this idea of a single divine reality, the Upanishads also teach that at the core of our being (referred to as "Atman") we are identical with this ultimate reality.-A popular saying in Hinduism is "Atman is Brahman!" In fact, all living things are Brahman at their innermost core! In addition, instead of ritual sacrifice, intuitive knowledge of the oneness of all things came to be endorsed as the way of contact with divine reality. Also found in the Upanishads is the teaching that the material world (including our conscious personalities) is less than fully real. The word "maya" is used to designate the power by which God, or ultimate reality, brought this less than real world into existence.-Though this monistic or pantheistic philosophy provided a comprehensive intellectual understanding of the divine reality for Hindus, it lacked a strong appeal to the heart. As a result, just before the dawn of the Christian era, a great transformation occurred in Hinduism, spurred particularly by the writing of the Bhagavad Gita, the "New Testament" of Hinduism. The Gita records a conversation between the warrior-prince Arjuna and his charioteer Krishna (who is unveiled as an incarnation of the god Vishnu), in which personal devotion to deity is endorsed as a way of salvation for all classes of people.-From this time forward, these two major streams of Hindu thought and practice grew and developed--the more intellectual and philosophical stream that emphasized the oneness of all things, and the stream that emphasized personal devotion to a god. The latter stream has predominated among the common people of India to this present day. Chief among the gods so venerated are Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer). In India there are many temples devoted to Shiva (or to one of his "wives," such as Kali), or to Vishnu (or to one of his ten incarnations known as avatars). All in all, it is often stated that Hinduism claims 330 million gods and goddesses!-One might wonder how such a multitude of beliefs about the divine could possibly co-exist in one religion. But they do. There is, however, a widespread recognition that none of the personal gods of Hinduism is in any way exclusive or unique. They are all simply different ways of conceiving of the one reality behind all things-- Brahman.

by the way this is one of the explanations. Hinduism if far to diverse in tis thought process. because it is a very open philosophy. it is too tolerant and believes in appreciating all the good things which in a lot ways leads to it being presented as contradictory because when you accept everything you will contradict yourself.. there are no restriction to which form god is. it could be in any form. it also as i mentioned earlier allows you not to believe in god at all.-Being a Hindu is way beyond just believing is god or not believing in god. God isn't the centre of attraction in Hinduism. Karma which means your Deeds are the centre of attraction. There is more emphasis on being a good human being and not necessarily on being a believer in God. That is where the core difference between Hinduism and abrahamic faiths is. I feel at times god and heaven and hell and all these concepts are given way too much importance than the actual practice of doing good deeds. I always say one thing to Christians and Muslims that rather concentrating on avoiding going to hell which i find extremely amusing why dont you just concentrate on doing good deeds because if you do that you would automatically not go to hell. but you see schools in america teaching kids about hell and how scary it is rather than teaching them to be good human beings. i find it weird.

Satyansh has kindly given us a guide to some of the basic elements of Hinduism. Like David, I find Hinduism very confusing, and so this is extremely useful. Obviously many branches do without the concept of a creator altogether, and in the light of the millions of gods and goddesses shared around, one really wonders if it isn't a collection of diffuse beliefs which should not be subsumed under a single name at all.-This seems to be borne out by your statement that Hinduism isn't institutionalized, "there isn't one set of thoughts that govern the whole religion", and "there are no widespread beliefs about its teachings". What a refreshing change that is from the fierce debates constantly going on over how to interpret the Bible and the Koran! As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), all the traditions have been handed down orally ... the Vedas being just a written record of what had been preserved orally ... which suggests history/myth and ritual. But could you tell us where Hindu morality stems from, as this is clearly a crucial aspect of religion that you yourself have highlighted.*** You say "religion cannot go because of human needs and who is to say that the replaced set of ideas won't be corrupted?" In the three Abrahamic religions, there have been so many disagreements over the texts throughout the centuries, with such disastrous results, that in terms of corrupted ideas I suspect both Jesus Christ and Mohammed would have been appalled at the atrocities perpetrated in their name. Who prescribes what is right or wrong in Hinduism, and according to what criteria? And does morality change from one form of Hinduism to another? -On the subject of rationality, which again you link to morality, I don't think any of us would deny its importance. But for me it's equally important to get the balance between reason, emotion and intuition. This also applies to morality, because without natural empathy, ethical codes won't take us beyond sets of laws beginning "Thou shalt not..." Do-as-you-would-be done-by goes a lot further, and involves kindness and charity and self-sacrifice, none of which will be engaged in spontaneously without a good dose of irrational empathy. (One can, of course, find good rational reasons for kindness etc., but I think genuinely kind people are intuitively and not rationally kind.)-*** I see from the latest posts that David has asked you a similar question, and once again you have provided a wonderfully clear explanation of different forms of Hinduism. Two things stand out for me: -1) You say the Bhagavad Gita tells us that "personal devotion to deity is endorsed as a way of salvation for all classes of people." What form does this devotion take? Prayer, obeying instructions, renouncing the world? And what form does "salvation" take? Release from the cycle of death and rebirth, some kind of paradise, conscious/ unconscious merging with the oneness of things? -2) "There is more emphasis on being a good human being and not necessarily on being a believer in God." This appeals enormously to the humanist in me, but again the question arises: who decides what constitutes "good", and according to what criteria?-Once again, thank you very much for bringing this new dimension to our forum, and for giving us such detailed and clear explanations.


> Being a Hindu is way beyond just believing is god or not believing in god. God isn't the centre of attraction in Hinduism. Karma which means your Deeds are the centre of attraction. There is more emphasis on being a good human being and not necessarily on being a believer in God. That is where the core difference between Hinduism and abrahamic faiths is. I feel at times god and heaven and hell and all these concepts are given way too much importance than the actual practice of doing good deeds. I always say one thing to Christians and Muslims that rather concentrating on avoiding going to hell which i find extremely amusing why dont you just concentrate on doing good deeds because if you do that you would automatically not go to hell.-Your thinking sounds just like mine, and I deeply appreciate the time you have spent in explaining The Hindu thought patterns. I am a descendent of Abraham, A Jew, who can't get around the idea that a greater power created our universe. Everything has a first cause. Karma or your deeds, of course, are the center of the matter. The Old Testament says be good for goodness itself, when its God is warlike. The New Testament says be good or face the punishments. It is a book which treats people like litle children, reward (heaven) or punishment (hell). The Koran has too much paganism for me. Attack the rest of the world and make it change to Koranic religion, whatever that is. - but you see schools in america teaching kids about hell and how scary it is rather than teaching them to be good human beings. i find it weird.-Only in parochial schools is such teaching given. Public schools could never be allowed to teach about hell. Discuss Dante's Inferno, yes, as literature. Religious, no.

"Who prescribes what is right or wrong in Hinduism, and according to what criteria? And does morality change from one form of Hinduism to another?"

Well there are explanations in the vedas which can be derived but honestly this is what is the basic theory:
Philosophy Of Right And Wrong-Everybody speaks: "This is right, that is wrong; you are right, he is wrong;" but he cannot tell you exactly what he means by 'right' and 'wrong'.
What is the criterion by which we judge an action to be right or wrong, and good or bad? "Right and wrong" and "good and bad" are relative terms. Right and wrong refer to the moral standard, as law. Good and bad refer to it, as end. You will have to adjust your conduct according to this moral standard. That which is in accordance with a rule is right. That which is worthy of achievement is good. Religion gives us the ultimate data upon which ethical science may be built.-Relative Nature Of Right And Wrong-Right and wrong—Dharma and Adharma—are relative terms. It is very difficult to define these terms precisely. Even sages are bewildered sometimes in finding out what is right and what is wrong in some special circumstances. That is the reason why Lord Krishna says in the Gita: "What is action? What is inaction? Even the wise are herein perplexed. Therefore I will declare to thee the action by knowing which thou shalt be liberated from evil. It is needful to discriminate action, to discriminate unlawful action, and to discriminate inaction; mysterious is the path of action. He who seeth inaction in action and action in inaction, he is wise among men; he is harmonious, even while performing all actions" (Ch. IV-16, 17, 18).

"1) You say the Bhagavad Gita tells us that "personal devotion to deity is endorsed as a way of salvation for all classes of people." What form does this devotion take? Prayer, obeying instructions, renouncing the world? And what form does "salvation" take? Release from the cycle of death and rebirth, some kind of paradise, conscious/ unconscious merging with the oneness of things?"

what matters in Hinduism is to attain the final stage of Moksha. Maybe this will help somewhat.
The four grand objects of human aspiration—Purusharthas—viz., Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha, Dharma is given the foremost rank in the scriptures. Dharma alone is the gateway to Moksha, to immortality, infinite bliss, supreme peace and highest knowledge. Dharma alone is the primary Purushartha. Dharma is the first and foremost Purushartha. Through the practice of Dharma alone can you ever hope to achieve the crowning glory of all human endeavours, viz., Moksha which is the best and the highest of all desirable things.-Practice of Dharma leads to the perfect realisation of essential unity or the final end, the highest good, namely, Moksha. Dharma is generally defined as 'righteousness' or 'duty.' Dharma is the principle of righteousness. It is the principle of holiness. It is also the principle of unity. The practitioner experiences peace, joy, strength and tranquillity within himself. His life becomes thoroughly disciplined. His powers and capacities are exceedingly intensified. He realises that there is one underlying homogeneous essence, a living truth, behind these names and forms. He is transmuted into divinity. His whole nature gets transformed. He becomes one with the Eternal. He beholds Brahman above, Brahman below, Brahman to the right, Brahman to the left, Brahman in front, Brahman at the back, Brahman within, Brahman without and Brahman pervading the whole world. -But then again Hinduism contradicts itself when it also says that you can attain Moksha through Dharma but it may not necessarily mean praying to the eternal almighty but just my merely living a righteous life. thats where the whole karma theory comes. I will give a brief explanation of the Karma theory. I dont agree with this theory though but that doesn't mean I am right. I have a detailed web explanation which i will paste in another reply.

The Law Of Karma-What Is Karma?-Karma means not only action, but also the result of an action. The consequence of an action is really not a separate thing. It is a part of the action, and cannot be divided from it. Breathing, thinking, talking, seeing, hearing, eating, etc., are Karmas. Thinking is mental Karma. Karma is the sum total of our acts both in the present life and in the preceding births.-Any deed, any thought that causes an effect, is called a Karma. The Law of Karma means the law of causation. Wherever there is a cause, there an effect must be produced. A seed is a cause for the tree which is the effect. The tree produces seeds and becomes the cause for the seeds.-How Karma Is Fashioned-Man is threefold in his nature. He consists of Ichha (desire, feeling), Jnana (knowing) and Kriya (willing). These three fashion his Karma. He knows objects like chair, tree, etc. He feels joy and sorrow. He wills to do this, or not to do that.-Behind the action, there are desire and thought. A desire for an object arises in the mind. Then you think how to get it. Then you exert to possess it. Desire, thought and action always go together. They are the three threads, as it were, that are twisted into the cord of Karma.-Desire produces Karma. You work and exert to acquire the objects of your desire. Karma produces its fruits as pain or pleasure. You will have to take births after births to reap the fruits of your Karmas. This is the Law of Karma.-The Working Of The Law-The Law of Karma is one of the fundamental doctrines not only in Hinduism, but also in Buddhism, and in Jainism. As a man sows, so he shall reap. This is the Law of Karma. If you do an evil action, you must suffer for it. If you do a good action, you must get happiness. There is no power on this earth which can stop the actions from yielding their fruits. Every thought, every word, every deed is, as it were, weighed in the scales of eternal, divine Justice. The Law of Karma is inexorable.-Things do not happen in this universe by accident or chance in a disorderly manner. They happen in regular succession. They follow one another in a regular order. There is a certain definite connection between what is being done now by you, and what will happen in the future.-Every action produces a threefold effect. It gives you an appropriate reward or fruit. It also affects your character. It leaves behind an impression in your mind. This impression will urge you to repeat the act again. The impression will assume the form of a thought-wave in the mind on account of a stimulus, either external or internal. An action produces an effect in the world also.-As You Sow, So You Reap-If you put a seed in the earth, it sends up a little stem. Then leaves come out of the stem. Then come flowers and fruits. There are seeds again in the fruits. Mango seed only produces mango tree. If you sow rice, you cannot expect a crop of wheat. The same sort of seed produces the same kind of plant. A human being alone is born from the womb of a woman, a horse from a horse and a dog from a dog. Similarly, if you sow the seed of an evil action, you will reap a harvest of pain and suffering. If you sow the seed of a virtuous action, you will reap a harvest of pleasure. This is the Law of Karma.-Whatever you sow by your actions come back to you. If you make others happy through service, charity and kind acts, you sow happiness like a seed; and it will give you the fruit of happiness. If you make others unhappy through harsh words, insult, ill-treatment, cruel acts, oppression, etc., you sow unhappiness like a seed; and it will give you the fruit of pain, suffering, misery and unhappiness. This is the immutable Law of Karma.-Your actions in the past are responsible for your present condition. Your present actions will shape or mould your future. There is nothing chaotic or capricious in this world. You become good by your good actions, and bad by your evil actions.-If you entertain evil thoughts, you must suffer the consequences. You will be in difficulties. You will be surrounded by unfavourable circumstances. You will blame your surroundings and circumstances. Understand the law and live wisely. Entertain noble thoughts. You will be happy always.

2) "There is more emphasis on being a good human being and not necessarily on being a believer in God." This appeals enormously to the humanist in me, but again the question arises: who decides what constitutes "good", and according to what criteria?-Well I think I have explained this question in the previous answers but I have own version for this one. Right or wrong according to me is just a majority opinion.-Say if the world was a sample size of 100 and the majority that practice one particular thought would be perceived right and others might be considered from being relatively right to completely wrong depending on their numbers.-I am true fan of Hinduism but along with that i also am a fan of the Darwin Theory of evolution by natural selection.


> I am true fan of Hinduism but along with that i also am a fan of the Darwin Theory of evolution by natural selection.-As you describe Hinduism, I have become a full fan of the philosophy. But about Darwin, you have opened up a whole can of worms. In my opinion Darwin invented a theory for his day and time that made some sense, but against today's scientific findings, it doesn't make much sense. Natural selection is the end point of a passive chance process, as defined by Darwin. Current science shows that the genome is very active in protecting itself, and natural selection must must make choices from the group of candidates presented to it. Just like in elections in a democracy. In primaries candidates for office are presented to the electorate. Then the people vote and the winners appear. Neo-Darwinism is the same. Natural selection has nothing to do with the presentation of new organisms for selection. All it can do is select, and that does happen. Darwinism presents no proof that new species appear by the method of that theory. It is a conclusion from hindsight, since none of us have lived to see it happening. A guess from watching breeders in action. Breeding new forms requires intelligence. Darwin requires no intelligence, just chance.

I can understand your point. but why would the creation of any specie require intelligence. what is your premise in assuming that. I am not asking your to rebut you. I genuinely want to increase my knowledge base.

I can understand your point. but why would the creation of any specie require intelligence. what is your premise in assuming that. I am not asking your to rebut you. I genuinely want to increase my knowledge base.-The way to understand my point would be to start to study the molecular machines that run the cell in life. The extreme complexity implies that the odds are infinitessimally small of pure chance achieving what we are studying in the biology of life. I am the biologist here, as a retired medical physician.-Study the following website, and be sure to look at the video. I've posted it here before but can't find it at the moment:-http://creation.com/atp-synthase

Satyansh,-As arguably the most opinionated (and possibly most full of Bullshit on this board) I welcome you and will attempt to engage you here!-I think that Western civilization is already "godless." Sure, 85% of Americans are Christian, but the watered-down views of today's Christians would have been death 150 years ago! -My favorite Philosopher is Frederich Nietzsche; he identified in his time that God was already moving away from being the center of all civilization and philosophy; he was concerned with what to do with that. His views are probably more Buddhist than Hindu, but the overall tolerance is there. -My culture made a terrible mistake about 1800 years ago when it decided to canonize its holy books and stopped having conversations with its Gods...-But back to your main question, if you look at Europe, it is already a conglomerate of atheistic nations; and while I don't necessarily agree with some of the more socialistic policies, I do recognize that religious tolerance is clearly more observed over there than it is here in my country of the USA.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

"As arguably the most opinionated (and possibly most full of Bullshit on this board) I welcome you and will attempt to engage you here!"-Now i woudnt want to think anybody is full of bullshit. Nothing is bullshit. There is useful info and useless info.-"I think that Western civilization is already "godless." Sure, 85% of Americans are Christian, but the watered-down views of today's Christians would have been death 150 years ago! "-I dont think the western civilization is Godless. Yah europe is increasing in terms of agnosticism but let me tell you they may not necesarrily believe in the ferry god of the abrahamic religions but they definately are not godless because i have travelled a lot in europe and U will be surprised how much of an impact hinduism and buddhism is making in europe simply because of the overall tolerant and spiritual superirority of these religions over the abrahamic variety. ( When I say superirority i really mean superiority). They may be getting away from the abrahamic religions but always remember mankind needs something to cling on. some kind of thought and philosophy is nothing but what a religion is for me. religion for me isn't a sacred thing but just a thought and philosophy which has survived for years.-"His views are probably more Buddhist than Hindu, but the overall tolerance is there. "-well i find this very funny and hear this a lot from westeners when they say x persons view is more buddhist than hindu. well I would recommend you read the 4 vedas first and then read the buddhism philosophies and the jainism philosophies and what u will see is they are 98% similar and i say this with as much ease as when i said hinduism and other eastern philosophies has spiritual superiority over the abrahamic faiths.
because for a person in india all the three faiths are not different we dont even consider them to be a different. they are all one big philosophy which has some differences. Hinduism is more open ended and buddhism and jainism are more specific as they only concentrated on 1 particular way. so if a persons views are buddhist they are as hindu and if a persons views are hindu they are as buddhist or jain. -"But back to your main question, if you look at Europe, it is already a conglomerate of atheistic nations; "-if you mean that they are following the New atheist movement i disagree with you but if you say they are agnostic to the point where they are having serious doubts about god i agree.-again the point you made about USA. i have family in USA for 10 years now have been to USA more than 15 times in the last decade and have lived in Canada for 2 years. But after visiting europe and North america. let me tell you my personal experience. when it comes to openess and expression of your views and not getting shit for it I would USA and Canada as far far ahead of europe as far as a Indian is concerned. I have a lot more respect for your country and its people than europe.

I think I am Hindu!!!

I read the creationist link. I dont agree with that the complexities had to be created by a creator. i just dont buy that because for who created the creator.I could still buy the man coming out of the complexities of nature but to be created by this supernatural phenemenum is just not on atleast for me my dear friend. 
the last line in the link was this:
"ATP synthase speaks of wisdom, intelligence, capability, or rationality in its creator, some of the exact attributes of God as revealed in the Bible! When we investigate His handiwork, we are both obeying His command in Genesis 1:28 to do the work necessary to "subdue the earth", and we have even more reason to praise and enjoy Him for His providence and genius."-than why does the creator mess up when he creates retarded children or children with disabilities. if they think as they did in the link it had to start somewhere David. i am not saying that natural selection by chance is right but in comparison to what i read on this link I would say for me natural selection by chance makes more sense to me. -for me the idea of a creator actually creating this is highly far fetched. I am not good with expressing myself in technical terms but the creator of this link seems to be the be all and end all of the world who cannot mess up but in my eyes there are too many mess ups that we have made. -I will tell you why I think people in the western world find it so hard to accept that we could just be here by chance or by some chemical reaction because they think God is the center of everything in the abrahamic western faiths. This is where the eastern philophies differ where they were always asking questions even in the vedas which are much older than all the western faiths. heres one of the verses in the first vedas
The Nasadiya Sukta, a creation hymn, says: 
"Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? 
Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of the universe. 
Who then knows whence it has arisen? Whence this creation has arisen-perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not-the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only He knows-or perhaps He does not know" -
No wonder it is easy for a Indian to accept agnosticism or atheism and still be a Hindu / jain / Buddhist because it was always made a part of it and hence I find we dont need to abolish our religious and cultural identity to accept science whereas science for me in the western world is like directly agaisnt religion and you have to pick one of the two which is so sad.

I think everyone who is born is actually born a hindu until they are baptized. Just an opinion. for me hindu isnt a rleigious identity. it is a cultural and a human identity for me. it is about being a good person. it isnt about being obssesed with god.

I do recognize that religious tolerance is clearly more observed over there than it is here in my country of the USA.-Really? Antisemitism is still very active from what I read, despite the concentration camp memorials. And finally France, Germany, Switzerland and the low countries are beginnning to atack Muslim lack of assimmilation


> than why does the creator mess up when he creates retarded children or children with disabilities. if they think as they did in the link it had to start somewhere David. i am not saying that natural selection by chance is right but in comparison to what i read on this link I would say for me natural selection by chance makes more sense to me. -How do you know a 'creator' messed up? You are attributing morals to the creator who may not have existing morals. You are making the same mistake western religions make. Giving attributes to whatever created this universe. Natural selection allowed illness, congenital mistakes, etc. Why should NS be so special and so powerful as the Darwinists explain?
> 
> for me the idea of a creator actually creating this is highly far fetched. I am not good with expressing myself in technical terms but the creator of this link seems to be the be all and end all of the world who cannot mess up but in my eyes there are too many mess ups that we have made. -I was using the link to show you the complexities of living biochemistry, not that I accept the preachings of a fundamentalist website. My point remains that the complexities of living biochemistry are too complex for mere chance to have stumbled upon.-> This is where the eastern philophies differ where they were always asking questions even in the vedas which are much older than all the western faiths. heres one of the verses in the first vedas
> The Nasadiya Sukta, a creation hymn, says: 
> "Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? 
> Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of the universe. 
> Who then knows whence it has arisen? Whence this creation has arisen-perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not-the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only He knows-or perhaps He does not know" -None of us knows, but there is still the Western question: Why is there anything rather than nothing?
 -> No wonder it is easy for a Indian to accept agnosticism or atheism and still be a Hindu / jain / Buddhist because it was always made a part of it and hence I find we dont need to abolish our religious and cultural identity to accept science whereas science for me in the western world is like directly agaisnt religion and you have to pick one of the two which is so sad.-No you don't. I think (as my book does) that science is in the process of proving there is a universal intelligence. Ignore religion and study science. I've already accepted my moral basis for livig with everyone else. I'm just like your philosophy of living, but you are in a sense placing yourself above most people by stating that they need religion to keep them in a moral line, but you don't. I recognize that I am doing that also. Religion is not necessary for the well-thought-out person. but I need to know why there is anything. And I think studying the 'how' will tell me.

"How do you know a 'creator' messed up? You are attributing morals to the creator who may not have existing morals. You are making the same mistake western religions make. Giving attributes to whatever created this universe. Natural selection allowed illness, congenital mistakes, etc. Why should NS be so special and so powerful as the Darwinists explain?"-you are comparing NS to the creator. i am not. i am saying for me if there was a creator he would be above everything the human mind could conceive so i find it weird that we would have to have all these different types. but NS could make these mistakes as there could be mess ups in the process of NS. The creator i thought or what has been proposed over generations by mankind is the ever perfect one. Anyways I find the Darwin theory fascinating. I would love some even better theory to come up and prove Darwin wrong. thats the beauty of science.I never said Darwin is 100% right I just said I am a fan. there nothing wrong in being a fan.-"No you don't. I think (as my book does) that science is in the process of proving there is a universal intelligence. Ignore religion and study science. I've already accepted my moral basis for livig with everyone else. I'm just like your philosophy of living, but you are in a sense placing yourself above most people by stating that they need religion to keep them in a moral line, but you don't. I recognize that I am doing that also. Religion is not necessary for the well-thought-out person. but I need to know why there is anything. And I think studying the 'how' will tell me."-I am not placing myself above anyone. I am just stating the facts and realities of life that I have seen or experienced. 
Again for westerners religion is the word of god. For us it isnt the work of god. our books aren't the work of god and they were never actually presented as the work of god. hence Hinduism for us is nothing but a socio cultural identity and a way of life. It isnt a religion for a true Hindu. there lies the difference. The actual name of Hinduism in Sanskrit is Sanatana Dharma which means eternal law. it isnt written to praise the God. It was written down as a genuine philosophy by our ancient sages who just wrote on various topics which have shaped our culture and tradition one of which was god. for a person in India it is only when the Muslims and British came and invaded us has this whole Hinduism as a serious religion came in and ruined our culture. because before that every person who lived in India lived by the Indus river. the invaders couldn't call us sindhus so they called us Hindus. the philosophy of the people living near the Indus river became Hinduism. it wasn't a religion just a philosophy. our concept of life is very different from the western concept. there have been great scientists and mathematicians in Indian history and all of them were Hindu and scientists. Hinduism for a Indian is a cultural identity. unfortunately it is the Muslims and Christians in India that have messed up the concept of being Hindu here because they started all this you are a Hindu we are not Hindus crap because they invaded us. for me everyone who's born and raised in India irrespective of their colour or race in this country is a Hindu.-You will only understand the Hindu way if you live in India. It is too open ended my dear friend. your not the first one in my life who doesn't understand me because we come from a different upbringing. We have a strong cultural ethos in India which is shaped through years of cultural heritage and in that science has been given its due importance. But for a Hindu science teaches why there is life for example but the Vedas teach you how to live you life. Infact i didn't say I dont need religion. I said i am proud to be a Hindu and proud of its philosophies and my countries cultural identity and have been immensely respectful of the vedic philosophy because our philosophies of life here teach us by default to ask why. Maths and science are given utmost importance in Indian culture not from now on but since yrs when they first invented vedic Ganit ( ganit means mathematics). for us science is a part of life. it is a necessity to ask why. you will find Indians to be inquisitive in general. we dont need to ignore Hinduism to study science. which is where we differ from western people. we are encouraged to study science in our basic philosophies. I wish i could explain it better but maybe I am not doing good job in expressing myself.

when i posted my post the whole premise for it was that we do need religion and the concept of god simply because people need it. and i was justifying that by citing the example of India where to study science you dont need to ignore Hinduism. 
I know it must be very hard for you to fathom David but trust me it is a very different feeling being a eastern religious identity follower. i infact find myself to be lucky enough to be born here to have such a open minded philosophy which tells me to grab every possible information of life and to enjoy all my senses in which science plays a major role.

I agree with david i think USA & Canada are much more open minded and secular in comparison to Europe.

Once again, Satyansh has provided us with detailed insights into the convolutions of Hinduism, and has raised some interesting questions. -You wrote: "You will have to take births after births to reap the fruits of your Karmas." If, as you say, "there is no power on earth which can stop the actions from yielding their fruits", experience suggests this can't possibly apply to the here and now, since so many apparently good people suffer unjustly, and so many apparently bad people get away with their evil deeds. Among my acquaintances, I don't know anyone who remembers a past life, and so I don't understand the relevance of the mistakes we made in previous lives. Surely if I'm to achieve Moksha, I must do it now, irrespective of my unremembered past. Do Hindus really remember past lives? If not, what is (a) the proof and (b) the point of reincarnation? (This is a genuine question, not a criticism.)-You say you are a fan of Hinduism "but along with that I also am a fan of the Darwin theory of evolution by natural selection." I don't know why you say "but also", since there seems to be no contradiction between the two. However, this does raise some important areas for discussion, which I'll come onto in a moment. As David has pointed out, natural selection is only part of the theory of evolution, and does not explain innovation or even the origin of new species ... it only explains variations in existing species. Most of us, however, accept Darwin's theory that all forms of life are descended from one or just a few forms, but there is much controversy over how the different species evolved from those forms. Furthermore, and most importantly perhaps, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life originated in the first place. David believes in an intelligent designer, whereas atheists believe life originated by chance. Darwin himself left that question entirely open ... he was an agnostic, not an atheist. You also believe that life originated by chance, but that is a matter of faith not of fact. Hindus (including yourself?) also believe in a spirit world, and in an impersonal, all-embracing deity called Brahma. Since you, like the rest of us, haven't a clue how life originated or, for that matter, how consciousness works, how can you be sure that they are not both the result of a deliberate creation, and that the deity you call Brahma (the creator) is not itself conscious and personal, and therefore the same as what others call Allah/Jehovah/God?-I should add that I agree with your castigation of atheist and religious fundamentalists, and also that the Abrahamic religions spend far too much time arguing over God instead of simply behaving decently towards their fellow humans. I'm an agnostic. But that means I do not dismiss the concept of a conscious, personal creator any more than I dismiss the concept of a deist god (with which your Brahma seems to have much in common) or no god(s) at all.

I wish i could explain it better but maybe I am not doing good job in expressing myself.-I think you are doing a great job. we toured india for over two weeks, from Jaisalmere to the Ganga, at Veranazi, and no one explained Hinduism as well as you are doing. i hope I'm speling the cities ok. I didn't stop to check spelling. Philosoophically I am very much a Hindu. I just believe there has to be a First Cause. I'm not content to ignore the idea.

I know it must be very hard for you to fathom David but trust me it is a very different feeling being a eastern religious identity follower. i infact find myself to be lucky enough to be born here to have such a open minded philosophy which tells me to grab every possible information of life and to enjoy all my senses in which science plays a major role.-All of us have a right to have a pride in the background and accomplishments of our own race. I have great pride in my Jewishness, altho' I don't practice the tenets of the religion.

Surprise: Atheistic folks don't reproduce at replacement rate, but fundamenalists are like rabbits. Dawkins can't win. He will be out-populated:-http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/phillip-longman/survival-of-the-godliest

"You wrote: "You will have to take births after births to reap the fruits of your Karmas." If, as you say, "there is no power on earth which can stop the actions from yielding their fruits", experience suggests this can't possibly apply to the here and now, since so many apparently good people suffer unjustly, and so many apparently bad people get away with their evil deeds. Among my acquaintances, I don't know anyone who remembers a past life, and so I don't understand the relevance of the mistakes we made in previous lives. Surely if I'm to achieve Moksha, I must do it now, irrespective of my unremembered past. Do Hindus really remember past lives? If not, what is (a) the proof and (b) the point of reincarnation? (This is a genuine question, not a criticism.)"-Well Honestly the karma theory I never quite understood it but then there have been cases in India where kids remember some really specific details( But trust me that is a huge monority and could probably be just a coincidence). -See I will explain myself again to you. i am Hindu socially and culturally. I may not believe in every word the vedas say because the very vedas have taught me that I should question everything. I myself am not entirely convinced by the karma theory but let me tell you when it comes to shaping the moral ethos of society the majority of hindus,buddhists, jains in India genuinely believe in the reincarnation theory without any reason. that is where the I feel Indians at times behave like abrahamic faiths followers where they just do not question the karma theory and their reseaning as once a very close friend of mine told me that " I rather spend time in doing good deeds and not worry about whether i would be born again unlike you is more concerned about questioning the theory and not actually concentrating on doing good deeds. what matters to you more finding out whether there is after life or to good deeds? and I just kept quite because no matter how much I would have explained to him he would have refused to understand. Eastern religious people believe in the spirit and that the spirit moves from one form to the other. There is a saying in my language Hindi which is ' Aatma Amar hai" which means the spirit is imortal it tries to say that your body may die the spirit never dies until it achieves Moksha.-I showed you the whole aspect of hinduism because i have to be fair and not biased. I have to show all the aspects of hinduism and karma theory is the whole basis of it and i know being a agnostic myself i never quite understood it. I personally do not know whether there is after life and hence i live assuming i wont be born again and so while i am alive i will try to make the most of it. but i also believe in the karma theory which states to concentrate more on deeds and not on the result of the deed. Another one liner from Hindu society in Hindi which says" karma kar phal ki iccha mat kar" this means keep on doing deeds dont worry about the rewards or results of those deeds. I hope I have cleared some queries in your minds.

" You say you are a fan of Hinduism "but along with that I also am a fan of the Darwin theory of evolution by natural selection." I don't know why you say "but also", since there seems to be no contradiction between the two. However, this does raise some important areas for discussion, which I'll come onto in a moment. As David has pointed out, natural selection is only part of the theory of evolution, and does not explain innovation or even the origin of new species ... it only explains variations in existing species. Most of us, however, accept Darwin's theory that all forms of life are descended from one or just a few forms, but there is much controversy over how the different species evolved from those forms. Furthermore, and most importantly perhaps, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life originated in the first place. David believes in an intelligent designer, whereas atheists believe life originated by chance. Darwin himself left that question entirely open ... he was an agnostic, not an atheist. You also believe that life originated by chance, but that is a matter of faith not of fact. Hindus (including yourself?) also believe in a spirit world, and in an impersonal, all-embracing deity called Brahma. Since you, like the rest of us, haven't a clue how life originated or, for that matter, how consciousness works, how can you be sure that they are not both the result of a deliberate creation, and that the deity you call Brahma (the creator) is not itself conscious and personal, and therefore the same as what others call Allah/Jehovah/God?"-May be I could have used a better word instead of but also. My english isnt that good. what i meant is i am fan of 2 things not one or the other or that both are seperate. I dont say i believe in darwins theory. I am a fan of darwins theory and when i say NS makes more sense to me it doesnt mean i believe it is the truth. I say it makes more sense to me than intelligent design or the creationists. but that doesnt mean I believe it to the word. there are so many things darwin coudn't answer because you just cannot tell. thats what makes us agnostic but we can definately be fascinated more by one theory and less by another. its quite human to think one makes more sense than the other. i dunnu if that is faith. i think i woudnt call it faith.-Now to the hindu concepts. I once again repeat myself. When i mention all the hindu concepts i explain them as how they are in its original form. there might be a lot of things where i may not agree with them or question them. infact my own post says this now on one hand one sage mentioned brahma and another sage in the same vedas mentioned this. read this line:
The Nasadiya Sukta, a creation hymn, says: 
"Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? 
Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of the universe. 
Who then knows whence it has arisen? Whence this creation has arisen-perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not-the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only He knows-or perhaps He does not know" -Now what u should understand is that basic hindu philosophy itself is agnostic. hence i told you hinduism is open ended and a lot of times it actually contradicts itself but it is my duty to give the whole picture which should be open to questioning. basically what hinduism is that you do good deeds. karma( the deed itself) is given most importance and reincarnation, god and everything else takes the 2nd place. Buddhism and Jainism only believe in the karma theory and not the brahma concept and hence they are totally agnostic or atheistic where they say the world wasnt made by a creator( jainism saying it has always been there and always will be there) and hence i find them very single tracked as they only took one part of hinduism and stuck to it. but hinduism remained open ended and allowed people and gave people the option of believing in any concept which appealed more to them but at the same time the emphasis on karma was the highest as it is in buddhism and jainism. i hope i have cleared your queries.

boy does Dawkins hate this link. i just think atheism like religious people who blindly follow it is extremely illogical and agnosticism for me is logical because I dont know is the only logical stand when nothing is proven.

See i dunnu why there has to be a first cause necessarily but logically it sounds more plausible than the Jainism idea that world was always there is always there will always be there. the Jainism answer seems to be of a person who must have thought i am not gonna know it just say it was always there because we may never know. I guess the Jain Guru might have given up the idea.

I asked Satyansh what was the evidence for and point of reincarnation, drew attention to the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution did not shed any light on the origin of life, and suggested that Brahma might not be that far removed from Jehovah/Allah/God, and we should keep an open mind about whether there might be a conscious and personal creator. Satyansh has given me a very thorough response, from which it is clear that he himself is asking similar questions, but that Hinduism allows for all approaches.-Again I can only thank you for the clarity and openness of your answers. The fact that English is not your native language makes your contribution all the more impressive! -There are two more questions I would like to ask you, if I may.-1) You have painted a rather idyllic picture of Hindus devoting themselves to doing good deeds, but of course Jews, Christians and Muslims also see themselves as morally good. I wonder to what extent the Hindu community in India has proved itself to be more altruistic and law-abiding than the small Christian community and the huge Muslim community. In other words, does the theoretical emphasis on good deeds actually have the desired practical results, as compared to other religions/philosophies?-2) In an earlier post you wrote that the highest attainable state is that of Moksha, in which the practitioner becomes one with the Eternal, and in your latest post you say "the spirit never dies until it achieves Moksha". I know you have your own doubts about such matters, but I'd be very interested if you could tell me what this means for the believer. Does he then lose his identity and consciousness in the great oneness of Brahma? Without our consciousness and identity, it seems to me that we might just as well be bones lying in the ground, in which case life is seen as a kind of hell, and death or Moksha are one and the same thing, providing us with final escape. But if we are still ourselves, how does the practitioner envisage spending the rest of eternity? Again, these are genuine questions, not criticisms, and I also ask them of Christians and Muslims who believe in an afterlife.

"1) You have painted a rather idyllic picture of Hindus devoting themselves to doing good deeds, but of course Jews, Christians and Muslims also see themselves as morally good. I wonder to what extent the Hindu community in India has proved itself to be more altruistic and law-abiding than the small Christian community and the huge Muslim community. In other words, does the theoretical emphasis on good deeds actually have the desired practical results, as compared to other religions/philosophies?"-You have no idea how thankful I am to you for asking me this question. I sincerely will thank you for probably all my life for this. As you know India was a much larger nation before it included the current nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the area that is currently called India.-India is a country which has a prime minister who is a Sikh( Sikhism is another religious minority in India). The leader of the party that is in power is a Christian. The President of India is a Muslim. -Now i will give you statistics of India's population when we were separated and Pakistan and India were 2 separate nations.-India 1947 Hinduism accounted for 86.5% of the population of India. Islam (9.9%), Christianity (1.6%) and Sikhism (1.3%) and the rest were other faiths.
India 2001 According to the 2001 census,Hinduism accounted for 80.5% of the population of India. Islam (13.4%), Christianity (2.3%) and Sikhism (1.9%) and the rest were other faiths.-Pakistan The Hindu population in Pakistan has reduced from 26%, in 1947, right down to 2% in 1990 which is now less than 1%.
 
Bangladesh The Hindu Population in 1971 when they were formed was 35% and now it is a mere 10%. Conceivably, by 2050 Bangladesh will achieve the status of Pakistan: no significant Hindu population.-Now why i am giving you these figures is because it is very important to understand while in India where the majority Hindu population in reducing because of factors such as one child per person and also other factors. Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh were subjected to immense torture and were either converted or killed. Hindus in their history have been very tolerant because of the teachings of their books and philosophies who believed in ahimsa( ahimsa means non violence). Let me put it this way. We were never Muslims. Muslims came and invaded us they tortured us and they killed us but we still accept them and they live with Hindus in India. Than Britishers came and they brought Christianity to India. They also killed us and tortured us and we still have them in India. that is because Hindus by nature are tolerant because their philosophies are tolerant. -India is a secular democracy but if you ask me while I agree other religions should be given their freedoms in India I do feel somewhere in my heart that there is a systematic Hindu cleansing happening in this country and pseudo secularism has over taken Indian politics especially when it comes to Muslims because they are a major vote bank in India and minority appeasement is really affecting India. If these statistics aren't a proof of altruistic and law-abiding Hindus than I dont know what is. I wont deny there haven't been religious attacks. But always remember Hindus in India have always attacked in defense. we dont have a history of going and invading any nation in more than 10000 years of our history but yes we were ruled first by Muslims and then by Christians for more than 700 years simply because Hindus are too tolerant and they believe in Non Violence. Heck the guy who freed us from the Britishers who is called Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi also got it from non violence and that is a Hindu concept my dear friend nothing else. I Hope this answers your first question. I could give you a barrage of historical evidences but then it would be forever.

" 2) In an earlier post you wrote that the highest attainable state is that of Moksha, in which the practitioner becomes one with the Eternal, and in your latest post you say "the spirit never dies until it achieves Moksha". I know you have your own doubts about such matters, but I'd be very interested if you could tell me what this means for the believer. Does he then lose his identity and consciousness in the great oneness of Brahma? Without our consciousness and identity, it seems to me that we might just as well be bones lying in the ground, in which case life is seen as a kind of hell, and death or Moksha are one and the same thing, providing us with final escape. But if we are still ourselves, how does the practitioner envisage spending the rest of eternity? Again, these are genuine questions, not criticisms, and I also ask them of Christians and Muslims who believe in an afterlife."-I Hope this answers this question. This is a detailed expalantion Moksha where you will find the asnwers I hope.-Hinduism-There are three major views on moksha from traditional Vedanta philosophy.-Advaita-According to Advaita Vedanta, the attainment of liberation coincides with the the realization of the Atman (one's personal soul) that it is identical with the Brahman, the source of all spiritual and phenomenal existence. The distinction between "self" and "one's body" is emphasized; the Neti Neti ("not this, not that") method of teaching is adopted. Moksha is seen as a final release from one's worldly conception of self and a loosening of the shackle of experiential duality, accompanied by the realization of one's own fundamental nature: sat (true being), cit (pure consciousness), and ananda, an experience which is ineffable and beyond sensation (see satcitananda).[9] Advaita holds that Atman, Brahman, and Paramatman are all one and the same - the formless Nirguna Brahman which is beyond the being/non-being distinction, tangibility, and comprehension.-Dvaita/Vishistadvaita-In Dvaita (dualism) and Vishistadvaita (qualified monism) schools of Vaishnava traditions, moksha is defined as the loving, eternal union with God (Ishvara) and considered the highest perfection of existence. The bhakta (devotee) attains the abode of the Supreme Lord in a perfected state but maintains his or her individual identity, with a spiritual form, personality, tastes, pastimes, and so on.-Achieving moksha-In Hinduism, atma-jnana (self-realization) is the key to obtaining moksha. The Hindu is one who practices one or more forms of Yoga - Bhakti, Karma, Jnana, Raja - knowing that God is unlimited and exists in many different forms, both personal and impersonal.-There are believed to be four Yogas (disciplines) or margas (paths) for the attainment of moksha. These are: working for the Supreme (Karma Yoga), realizing the Supreme (Jnana Yoga), meditating on the Supreme (Raja Yoga) and serving the Supreme in loving devotion (Bhakti Yoga). Different schools of Hinduism place varying emphasis on one path or other, some of the most famous being the tantric and yogic practices developed in Hinduism.-Vedanta approaches are split between strict non-duality (advaita), non-duality with qualifications (such as vishishtadvaita), and duality (dvaita). The central means to moksha advocated in these three branches vary.-Advaita Vedanta emphasizes Jnana Yoga as the ultimate means of achieving moksha, and other yogas (such as Bhakti Yoga) are means to the knowledge, by which moksha is achieved. It focuses on the knowledge of Brahman provided by traditional vedanta literature and the teachings of its founder, Adi Shankara.[10] Through discernment of the real and the unreal, the sadhak (practitioner) would unravel the maya and come to an understanding that the observable world is unreal and impermanent, and that consciousness is the only true existence. This intellectual understanding was moksha, this was atman and Brahman realized as the substance and void of existential duality. The impersonalist schools of Hinduism also worship various deities, but only as a means of coming to this understanding - both the worshiped and worshiper lose their individual identities. 
Non-dualist schools sees God as the most worshippable object of love, for example, a personified monotheistic conception of Shiva or Vishnu. Unlike Abrahamic traditions, Advaita/Smartha Hinduism does not prevent worship of other aspects of God, as they are all seen as rays from a single source. The concept is essentially of devotional service in love, since the ideal nature of being is seen as that of harmony, euphony, its manifest essence being love. By immersing oneself in the love of God, one's karmas (good or bad, regardless) slough off, one's illusions about beings decay and 'truth' is soon known and lived. Both the worshiped and worshiper gradually lose their illusory sense of separation and only One beyond all names remains. 
One must achieve moksha on his or her own under the guidance of a Guru. A guru or a siddha inspires but does not intervene.-Components
In the state of moksha or mukti, lies ultimate peace (shanti), ultimate knowledge (viveka), and ultimate enlightenment (kaivalya).

Once again, many thanks to satyansh for comprehensive answers to my questions. The appalling treatment of the Hindus by the so-called "Christian" British, and the manner in which the British divided India, is one of the great stains on our history. Gandhi is now almost venerated for his insistence on non-violence in the successful campaign for independence, but not long ago I read an account purporting to give Nathuram Godse's reasons for the assassination. He has always been dismissed over here as a Hindu fanatic, but apparently his motives were politically very rational, as he felt that Gandhi was leading India and especially the Hindus to disaster. Your own account would seem to justify his motivation, if not his action. You have also highlighted the difficult problem of achieving a balance between the need to avoid violence and aggression, and the need for self-defence. -On a lighter note: I don't know if you're a cricket fan, but from all your posts I suspect that Sachin Tendulkar is a Hindu. He is, I think, a living example of how plain decency in a human being elicits respect from others. No-one ever sledges him! (Apologies to our American friends, who will be wondering if such secret codes should be reported to Wikileaks.)-Your response concerning concepts of the afterlife again makes it clear that there are all sorts of theories/beliefs/philosophies. Dvaita/Vishistadvaita appears to be the equivalent of the Christian heaven and the Muslim paradise. In the others, it seems that there is a loss of identity at death, in which case presumably enlightenment must be achieved in this life, after which the practitioner merges into the great oneness. In that case the duality between spirit/soul/self and body is ultimately of no account, since they both cease to exist anyway. -This thread has been a real eye-opener for me, and I suspect for others too, and although Hinduism remains far too convoluted for me to say I "understand" it (perhaps no-one does), I have a much better idea now of what it involves and what it stands for. I hope you'll continue to enlighten us!

"but not long ago I read an account purporting to give Nathuram Godse's reasons for the assassination. He has always been dismissed over here as a Hindu fanatic, but apparently his motives were politically very rational, as he felt that Gandhi was leading India and especially the Hindus to disaster. Your own account would seem to justify his motivation, if not his action. You have also highlighted the difficult problem of achieving a balance between the need to avoid violence and aggression, and the need for self-defence."-Nathuram Godse's letter is one of the finest proofs in Indian history about Gandhi and his obsession with minorities. I always say Gandhi motives were admirable and i admire him for a lot of things but when to comes to the cost my country paid i hate him for that. I am not one of those Indians who says Muslims dont deserve to be in India.They are as Indian as I am. Infact and i support them living in India. But when you have a country where minority appeasement is so prevailing that you have 2 constitutions one for India and one for Kashmir and it's Muslims it hurts you. The problem of achieving the balance between being secular and being pseudo secular has existed since our independence.-"On a lighter note: I don't know if you're a cricket fan, but from all your posts I suspect that Sachin Tendulkar is a Hindu. He is, I think, a living example of how plain decency in a human being elicits respect from others. No-one ever sledges him! (Apologies to our American friends, who will be wondering if such secret codes should be reported to Wikileaks.)"-I love Sachin Man. I am huge fan of Tendulkar. as far as wiki leaks are concerned I think Hillary Clinton has already shown how much she loves wiki leaks. i dun need to say more(LOL). But I like Americans very open minded people. I infact like westerners, they have come a long way from being those racist people who hated anyone other than them to be quite tolerant.Well there will be nut jobs everywhere but majority of them have realised you just cannot avoid other races now.-"Your response concerning concepts of the afterlife again makes it clear that there are all sorts of theories/beliefs/philosophies. Dvaita/Vishistadvaita appears to be the equivalent of the Christian heaven and the Muslim paradise. In the others, it seems that there is a loss of identity at death, in which case presumably enlightenment must be achieved in this life, after which the practitioner merges into the great oneness. In that case the duality between spirit/soul/self and body is ultimately of no account, since they both cease to exist anyway.-This thread has been a real eye-opener for me, and I suspect for others too, and although Hinduism remains far too convoluted for me to say I "understand" it (perhaps no-one does), I have a much better idea now of what it involves and what it stands for. I hope you'll continue to enlighten us!"-Well those are the concepts that Hinduism preaches. I myself struggle in my own way to find out whether there is a after life or there isn't. I agree with you about hinduism being convoluted for you, heck it is confusing to me too. Hence I said its too open ended. What would like to know is what are your views on spirituality from a western perspective.


> Well those are the concepts that Hinduism preaches. I myself struggle in my own way to find out whether there is a after life or there isn't. I agree with you about hinduism being convoluted for you, heck it is confusing to me too. Hence I said its too open ended. What would like to know is what are your views on spirituality from a western perspective.-My views are not too far from the many opened ended Hindu teachings (I now realize thanks to you Satyansh) most of which I've come upon myself. I choose to believe in karma and reincarnation because it's the ideas that bring me the greatest inner peace. It explains to my observant (and sometimes fearful) mind the luck (good and bad) people have as well as the very horrific and wondrous things we humans experience here on earth.-But most of all, I believe in reincarnation because, I believe just as matter is endless and ever evolving, so is consciousness. I also choose to believe that earth is only one of many fields for the consciousness to come and play and learn in. -Because we have endless consciousness we have the option at any time of forgetfulness. Earth is a great place to come and forget your infinite soul and to play and learn in the field of forgetfulness.-bb

Yet again, my thanks to satyansh for a thorough response. I too am a huge fan of Tendulkar!-The only outstanding matter from your post is that you would like to know my views on spirituality from a western perspective. -I have a completely open mind on the question of whether what we call the spirit is or is not bound to the body. By that I mean that I find our powers of consciousness, emotion, imagination, memory etc. totally mystifying, and don't know if the brain is some wonderful machine that PRODUCES these processes, or if the brain acts as a MEDIUM through which some unknown form of identity operates. If there is a duality of spirit and body, I don't see it as being of any significance unless there is some form of afterlife. In other words, if all of me dies when my body dies, the whole question of duality will become irrelevant, although that doesn't stop me thinking about it! On the subject of reincarnation, see my final paragraph.-As for spirituality in the sense of a personal philosophy, I have tried all my life to be kind, not to be selfish, to fulfil whatever talents I have, and to respect other people's opinions unless I consider them to be harmful. I can't claim that this is in aid of some grand ideal, because it just happens to be the way of life that makes me happy. On the other hand, if I think someone is out to make me unhappy, I will defend myself! I abhor violence and aggression but am not a pacifist. I would probably have been a useless soldier (I'm far too old now anyway), but I accept the necessity for defensive warfare. Spiritual matters such as religion and the arts are of great interest to me, but I have no religious beliefs, do not feel any need for them, and am sceptical towards all prescriptive religions and philosophies.-My scepticism does not, however, blind me to the spiritual values that the various religions and philosophies set out to foster, and in general ... if we can shut theology out of the equation ... I think the basic ideas of self-improvement and consideration for others are common to them all. Whether the link to forms of existence beyond our own is real or not is another matter, which is why I'm an agnostic.-In response to BBella's post on reincarnation, I see no point in it if we do not remember our former lives. We might just as well start from scratch, as it makes not the slightest difference whether we were or weren't here before. As regards people's good or bad luck, if a branch falls on my head, I would much prefer to have people attending to my injuries and saying how unlucky I am than to have them telling me it's my own fault because in a past life I must have been an absolute bastard.

"As regards people's good or bad luck, if a branch falls on my head, I would much prefer to have people attending to my injuries and saying how unlucky I am than to have them telling me it's my own fault because in a past life I must have been an absolute bastard."-Like the last part (LOL).-I find your views pretty similar to mine the only difference being you are not really interested in being affiliated with any religious identity. -While i myself am not too serious on any religion but i stick to Hinduism mostly because it fascinates me and is also a part of my social and cultural identity and i really dont think it hinders me from questioning life in general.-I have to say this from the bottom of my heart that it has been an absolute pleasure talking to all of you. You have helped me immensely in enhancing my knowledge in terms of the beauty of life in general.-Meeting people like you and all the others reinstate my faith that while human beings are killing each other on a large variety of reasons we still have people who truly believe in humanity and freedom.

Satyansh: I have to say this from the bottom of my heart that it has been an absolute pleasure talking to all of you. You have helped me immensely in enhancing my knowledge in terms of the beauty of life in general.
Meeting people like you and all the others reinstate my faith that while human beings are killing each other on a large variety of reasons we still have people who truly believe in humanity and freedom.-I'm sure all of us feel the same way about you, and I reckon we've now found that we have a lot more in common with Hinduism than we ever thought we had! One of the most reassuring features of this forum has been that although virtually all those who are contributing now, or who have contributed in the past, have had major differences of opinion, the exchange of views has almost always been free from the personal abuse and arrogance often found in such discussions. Long may it remain so!


> A popular saying in Hinduism is "Atman is Brahman!" In fact, all living things are Brahman at their innermost core! In addition, instead of ritual sacrifice, intuitive knowledge of the oneness of all things came to be endorsed as the way of contact with divine reality. Also found in the Upanishads is the teaching that the material world (including our conscious personalities) is less than fully real. The word "maya" is used to designate the power by which God, or ultimate reality, brought this less than real world into existence.-
Welcome to the forums! As usual, I am about a day late to the ball. -There was something in your post here that struck a chord with me. First the quote "Atman is Brahman" is very resonate with the much later catch phrase of popular science fiction writer Robert Heinlein, "Thou art God", and represents I think one of the key pieces missing from the Abrahamic religions, namely the oneness of everything.-The other thing that caught my attention, is the word Maya. The obvious connection would be to the Mayan population of the central/south Americas. Normally I would dismiss such a thing as coincidence of language. However, based on my admittedly limited study of the Vedas, there was some mention of odd flying contraptions in their text. What is strange about that is that there were necklaces found in Mayan/Aztec ruins that seem to depict such flying contraptions, right down to having the symbols for rise and descend engraved on them. One thing might be coincidence, but two? Makes me wonder if there is any link between ancient Mayans and the Ancient Indians. -Anyway, welcome to the forums, and thank you for your enlightening posts on Hiduism. It is a much appreciated viewpoint. -As far as rationalism is concerned though, don't get to hung up on it. Rationalism is the Yin to Irrationalism's(Spiritualism) Yang. They are both equally valid and necessary for humanity. It is no coincidence that there is not a single culture in human history that is devoid of religion. Just as there is not a single culture in human history that is completely devoid of rational progress in some fashion.

Once again, many thanks to satyansh for comprehensive answers to my questions. The appalling treatment of the Hindus by the so-called "Christian" British, and the manner in which the British divided India, is one of the great stains on our history. Gandhi is now almost venerated for his insistence on non-violence in the successful campaign for independence, but not long ago I read an account purporting to give Nathuram Godse's reasons for the assassination. He has always been dismissed over here as a Hindu fanatic, but apparently his motives were politically very rational, as he felt that Gandhi was leading India and especially the Hindus to disaster. Your own account would seem to justify his motivation, if not his action. You have also highlighted the difficult problem of achieving a balance between the need to avoid violence and aggression, and the need for self-defence. -DHW, in answer to this, I would suggest you read the first several chapters of the Bhagavad-Gita, where Vishnu is telling Krishna that slaughtering those who have in essence given up their claim to humanity by virtue of their vile deeds is not a crime nor are they deserving of your remorse, even if they are family members. The book obviously does a much better job of explaining it, but that is its essence in a nutshell.

Its never too late my friend. Infact this forum has been a refreshing change from the normal bashing that happens almost on all the other forums. I find people here genuinely interested in solving the mysteries that life has presented.-"There was something in your post here that struck a chord with me. First the quote "Atman is Brahman" is very resonate with the much later catch phrase of popular science fiction writer Robert Heinlein, "Thou art God", and represents I think one of the key pieces missing from the Abrahamic religions, namely the oneness of everything."-Well honestly if you look back at the history of India and if you do research on the Sanskrit language and Hindi language there isn't any word in Sanskrit or Hindi that actually describe the word religion. People often use the word "Dharma" for religion but Dharma in it's true form actually means righteousness or one's duty and it has nothing to do with explaining religion as it is defined in the English language.-I often wonder at times that what we know as Hinduism the religion was it really a religion or it became a religion in the process when we were invaded first by Mughals(Muslims) and than by the British because before that it was just us eastern philosophies namely Hinduism( Sanatana Dharma which means eternal law is the true name) along with Jainism and Buddhism. I almost feel at times when we got attacked by the Muslims, the origin of Hinduism as a religion seems to be a response of a identity threat posed to our civilization. because we were called Hindus by them because we lived by the Indus river and the people who we thought were visitors but actually they wanted to kick our asses and rule us couldn't call us sindhus hence they called us Hindus. so if u think like that, actually it never really was a religion. it was a culmination of many people sitting down and just jotting down philosophies in the Vedas followed by the Upanishads/puranas/geeta/mahabharata.-I think the abrahamic religions have a very different thought process because they were presented to mankind as a word of god but eastern philosophies were not actually written to be a word of god but just words of wise men who thought they could contribute to the society at large. hence i feel at times they aren't really religions if you go by the actual English definition of religions.-"The other thing that caught my attention, is the word Maya. The obvious connection would be to the Mayan population of the central/south Americas. Normally I would dismiss such a thing as coincidence of language. However, based on my admittedly limited study of the Vedas, there was some mention of odd flying contraptions in their text. What is strange about that is that there were necklaces found in Mayan/Aztec ruins that seem to depict such flying contraptions, right down to having the symbols for rise and descend engraved on them. One thing might be coincidence, but two? Makes me wonder if there is any link between ancient Mayans and the Ancient Indians."-well Maya in sanskrit and hindi means something that could be broadly included in the things that come under dream or illusion. i dont know the mayan connection. i have to research that.-Last but not the least thank you for welcoming me to the forum. it is indeed a great pleasure talking to you. as far as rationality goes. i know being rational isn't the most important thing. but i guess at that point of time i felt like writing that post so i mentioned that point in the post.

Its never too late my friend. Infact this forum has been a refreshing change from the normal bashing that happens almost on all the other forums. I find people here genuinely interested in solving the mysteries that life has presented.
> -I have to agree with you here. The attitude of this group has been immensely refreshing when compared with some of the other discussion forums I have tried.-
> "There was something in your post here that struck a chord with me. First the quote "Atman is Brahman" is very resonate with the much later catch phrase of popular science fiction writer Robert Heinlein, "Thou art God", and represents I think one of the key pieces missing from the Abrahamic religions, namely the oneness of everything."
> -I am actually just starting work on my B.A. in History/Philosophy/Religion(it is so cool that you can specialize degrees like that now). So I am really looking forward to studying Hinduism and other Eastern philosophies. Regardless of what Hinduism may have started out as, however, it is indeed a religion. And it is set up as a religion from the time of the Vedas. For example the Bhagavad-Gita starts off as a conversation between God and Man. You can't exactly get more 'religious' than that. That is not to discredit or belittle Hinduism in anyway, just trying to keep things in their proper perspective. For that matter, any idea that has enough followers and contains a structure of beliefs is a religion, and in that respect DHW is correct in saying that even Atheism is a religion. -
> 
> "The other thing that caught my attention, is the word Maya. The obvious connection would be to the Mayan population of the central/south Americas. Normally I would dismiss such a thing as coincidence of language. However, based on my admittedly limited study of the Vedas, there was some mention of odd flying contraptions in their text. What is strange about that is that there were necklaces found in Mayan/Aztec ruins that seem to depict such flying contraptions, right down to having the symbols for rise and descend engraved on them. One thing might be coincidence, but two? Makes me wonder if there is any link between ancient Mayans and the Ancient Indians."
> 
> well Maya in sanskrit and hindi means something that could be broadly included in the things that come under dream or illusion. i dont know the mayan connection. i have to research that.
> -I was actually just idly musing about the possibility that the Mayans, and possibly even Aztecs were in fact of Indian/Hindu decent. The name would actually be very fitting for them, particularly if they named their culture after a dream of some previous cultural peak that was so changed in the way that it was passed down from generation to generation that it took on the form myth and legend versus the very real history it contained. It would explain some of the cultural diffusion, particularly on the religious front. There are a large number of similarities between early american religious beliefs and the ancient polytheistic beliefs of the Hindu. Just a thought..

I've recently read portions of "Bhagavad Gita as it Is." If this author is representing hinduism, he's abdicating our right to free will. "Anyone who thinks he is not controlled is insane," the author says in the introduction. Everything is predetermined...-That is NOT like Buddhism at all. Though keep in mind I practiced Buddhism from the vietmanese/Japanese perspective that throws out everything but meditative practice, highly minimal.-I share your view that philosophically, eastern religions are certainly more balanced, yet I hate it when people say that ALL people seek religion, god, whatever. I do not. I live by my own philosophy, and do not care for cosmic appeals outside of fascination for culture. I revere only man's intellect and free will as objects worthy of enshrinement, however odd this might sound. I recognize that whatever truth might exist, I am limited to a material body in a material world, with a similarly rooted perspective that isn't easy to dislodge. -With all due respect, Shakyamuni founded his religion on the principle that mysticism and materialism were two extremes, and that neither was wholly correct. Thus Buddhism was born. It is in this light of perspectivism that Nietzcshe founded his own school.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

"I've recently read portions of "Bhagavad Gita as it Is." If this author is representing hinduism, he's abdicating our right to free will. "Anyone who thinks he is not controlled is insane," the author says in the introduction. Everything is predetermined...-That is NOT like Buddhism at all. Though keep in mind I practiced Buddhism from the vietmanese/Japanese perspective that throws out everything but meditative practice, highly minimal.-I share your view that philosophically, eastern religions are certainly more balanced, yet I hate it when people say that ALL people seek religion, god, whatever. I do not. I live by my own philosophy, and do not care for cosmic appeals outside of fascination for culture. I revere only man's intellect and free will as objects worthy of enshrinement, however odd this might sound. I recognize that whatever truth might exist, I am limited to a material body in a material world, with a similarly rooted perspective that isn't easy to dislodge.-With all due respect, Shakyamuni founded his religion on the principle that mysticism and materialism were two extremes, and that neither was wholly correct. Thus Buddhism was born. It is in this light of perspectivism that Nietzcshe founded his own school."-Now if you are going only by the Geeta than I think your perspective of Hindu Philosophy is pretty narrow and you are restricting yourself. The Hindu philosophy is starting from the vedas then we have the upanishads the puranas and then last comes the geeta/ramayana/mahabharata. the geeta explains a very a small part of the vast hindu philosophy. i would recommend you to read the vedas in detail and than explain to me how different buddhism/hinduism/jainism really are. Like i said exactly in my previous post.-"Hinduism is more open ended and buddhism and jainism are more specific as they only concentrated on 1 particular way. so if a persons views are buddhist they are as hindu and if a persons views are hindu they are as buddhist or jain."-What buddhism and jainism are following and i know it in some detail, (although i am no expert and i am always open to new opinions) as I am lucky enough to be born in the land of these philosophies and I was just interested in them because of the immense respect I have for Buddha and Mahavira as great human beings. I never say they are 100% similar obviously they cannot be but the core principles of all the eastern philosophies are pretty much the same because they are coming from the same socio-cultural background. infact buddhism and jainism have had immense influences on future hindu philosophies too. -Now to your point of you not needing religion. For me being a hindu isnt a religious thing but it is a cultural and social identity. i belong to the ancestry of people who lived along the indus river and because the visitors who came to visit could not pronounce the word sindhu which was the region where they used to live of Sindh they started calling us hindu.-Now the set of rules of the conduct of the people who lived there was basically called Hinduism the original name is Sanatana Dharma which means Eternal Law. Now is it really a religion I dont know. Maybe they were not intended to be made religions but over the advent of time they have become religions.

"I am actually just starting work on my B.A. in History/Philosophy/Religion(it is so cool that you can specialize degrees like that now). So I am really looking forward to studying Hinduism and other Eastern philosophies. Regardless of what Hinduism may have started out as, however, it is indeed a religion. And it is set up as a religion from the time of the Vedas. For example the Bhagavad-Gita starts off as a conversation between God and Man. You can't exactly get more 'religious' than that. That is not to discredit or belittle Hinduism in anyway, just trying to keep things in their proper perspective. For that matter, any idea that has enough followers and contains a structure of beliefs is a religion, and in that respect DHW is correct in saying that even Atheism is a religion."-I agree with you if you believe any idea that a certain number of followers is a religion. then yes Hinduism is a religion. but than that would make some seriously weird things religions too. -But what intrigues me is that you ask any Sanskrit scholar and tell him the word for religion in Sanskrit and he cannot give you a word. i haven't found a word which is used to pronounce religion in Sanskrit.-Because Dharma does not mean religion and Hinduism is called Sanatana Dharma which means Eternal law. Now thats what makes me question that is it really a religion.-Another thing this is just a suggestion. You really want to form an opinion about hindu philosophies than read the vedas first. you will never get a true hindu perspective until you do not read the vedas. geeta is a small part of the vast hindu philosophy. do not form opinions based on the geeta. i am not disrespecting the geeta but honestly i think it doesnt do justice to hinduism.

In my opinion, philosophies becom religions when people become enshrined; when their thoughts are "canonized." While I do plan on reading all of the vedas, the author I am reading for "geeta" (proper? Don't want to say the wrong thing!) Is definitely of the opinion that the gita is the only vedic text one ever needs to read. It's the most abrahamic I have ever seen an eastern author be. -As for cultural identity, I can sympathize; I'm from nordic descent, and have spent a couple years learning the traditions of my ancestors. The stories of Odin and Thor resonate more with me than thetradition I was raised in. -I also believe that the goal of humanism is synonymous with what I learned from Buddhism, but I still cannot abide by vegetarianism and pacifism. That said, I will have my kids raised as Buddhists before Christians--my response to the intolerance I was raised in. -I think we have much in common despite our backgrounds. I look forward to exploring this!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

"In my opinion, philosophies becom religions when people become enshrined; when their thoughts are "canonized." While I do plan on reading all of the vedas, the author I am reading for "geeta" (proper? Don't want to say the wrong thing!) Is definitely of the opinion that the gita is the only vedic text one ever needs to read. It's the most abrahamic I have ever seen an eastern author be."-well I do not know whos actually presenting hinduism to you. In my humble opinion he is actually not entirely aware of Indias History and probably suffers from the same intellectual corruption that a lot of Indians suffer. My advice read the vedas first because the geeta to me is basically a part of the mahabharata and it does not represent hinduism in its totality. i dunnu how abrahamic it is though because the geeta i have read and we have in our house certainly isnt like the bible or koran. but yes there might be similarities which will be there in any kind of theistic book.-"I think we have much in common despite our backgrounds. I look forward to exploring this!"-It has been a pleasure to meet everyone here. i am also looking forward to meaningful and enlightening discussions on this forum.

I believe that without religion world will not survive.

tofayel: I believe that without religion world will not survive.-Welcome to the forum. Do please tell us your reasons for this belief.